Yesterday (19/11/13) I commented on Twitter that the daily overview
schedule for this year's summit is not the most useful document of this
type I have ever come across. To some extent this seems to have
triggered off that long running argument about public access that is
always in the background. After all there are parties who are infuriated
that this type of summit is even going on let alone that people like me
are allowed to learn about and even get involved in it.
Therefore I feel I should start by pointing out that this year I've
experienced very little problem getting hold of relevant documents. What
I have experienced though is a great deal of trouble in finding the
time to read and comprehend all these documents. After all you need to
do a lot of background reading to even understand what the texts being
circulated daily mean. For example today in between putting together the
not strictly speaking necessary Rihanna post, the Greenpeace post and
some really dull but time consuming domestic chores I've only been able
to read the intial overview document on the Durban Platform for
Adaptation (ADP). In fact if I'm being honest by the time I'd got on to
the bit about transparency it had stopped going into my brain so I sort
of gave up.
However tomorrow sees the final working day on the ADP before the
results can be presented on Friday's (22/11/13) final day. Therefore I
feel I should make some comment about it now. I should stress though
that because I've not in any meaningful way followed the progress of the
ADP since the opening of the summit this is really just my own ideas
rather then a response to anything that has been said.
The main problem that strikes me is that it seems to be following the
framework of the Kyoto Protocol which to be blunt did not work.
Basically this sees nations divided into either rich nations or poor
nations. The rich nations are expected to cap their greenhouse gas (ghg)
emissions whilst providing money to the poor nations who allowed to
continue growing their emissions while spending the money on development
projects. This notion is based on the somewhat valid idea that the rich
nations became rich nations by emitting ghg's that are now threatening
the poor nations - a sort of historical debt. The problem is that the
rich nations simply will not agree to this approach and the poor nations
are in no position to force them to.
So although you only need to read the past nine months of this blog to
see how the rich nations have been trying to collapse this summit the
poor nations insistence that the rich nations must pay to settle this
historical debt is also becoming a major barrier to progress. From the
glimpses I've seen China appear to be leading this effort most probably
in an attempt to avoid being reclassified as a rich nation. This is not
only bad news for the entire planet but also could end up hampering poor
nations development.
Take for example the area of mitigation. Here rich nations are expected
to submit Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Commitments (NAMC's) which
are simply self-decided reductions in ghg gas emissions. Certain nations
*coughs* the US *coughs* are simply not going to set these targets or
set them so low as to be meaningless. On the other hand poor nations are
expected to submit Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA's).
These are much more complicated and require the poor nations to explain
to the rich nations exactly how they intend to economically develop
themselves whilst reducing the ghg intensity of their economies. Given
the way that certain rich nations have been behaving recently I and
quite a few poor nations are more then a little worried that the rich
nations won't be using this information to help the poor nations.
Therefore I think a better approach would be for all nations to submit
NAMA's. That way the rich nations demands for information from the poor
nations would be tempered by the amount of information they're prepared
to give out about themselves creating a balance that helps build trust.
It would also give a more accurate picture of global ghg intensity
providing a more accurate starting point from which to negotiate
reductions. It would also give rich nations incentive to undertake
joined up green development strategies rather then simply chasing
targets. Target chasing is of course how the UK responded to Kyoto and
ended up getting themselves into quite a serious mess as a result.
Similarly in adaptation the rich nations seem to be expected to provide
the latest technological developments to the poor nations either for
free or at a heavy subsidy. In return the poor nations are expected to
produce National Action Plan's (NAP's) explaining to the rich nations
exactly how they plan to adapt to environmental hazards. Again I think
it would be better for all nations to submit NAP's. That not only
reduces the alarmingly imbalanced flow of information from poor nations
to rich nations it also allows the poor nations the advantage of seeing
what the rich nations are actually doing rather then what they just
recommend to poor nations. The dumping of genetically modified crops on
the developing world is a particular example of this.
The Green Climate Fund (GCF) was actually conceived specifically to
allow the transfer of green technology without creating the culture of
dependency between rich and poor nations. That's because there are
actually many private companies who have developed green technologies
off their own backs and now need to sell them to people in order to
cover their costs. The only problem is the difference between the price
the seller has to charge and the buyer can afford to pay. This can be
solved with a variety of financial instruments such as loan guarantees
that don't involve rich nations having to give poor nations cash.
On that last point I should mention that rather randomly today I've
mostly been watching contributions from Bolivia who seem to have taken
over the role of global village idiot from Venezuela. On both occasions I
have seen a Bolivian delegate speak they have first raged against the
rich nations for not giving them any money before loudly rejecting any
market based system that would give them some money. That is not the
path to a productive outcome.
(Originally Posted) 23:15 on 20/11/13 (UK date).
No comments:
Post a Comment