Enlisement des négociations climatiques, une année de plus ?[en] 

The global community is currently engaged in negotiations to agree a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. An agreement on a new treaty is set to be reached at the Copenhagen climate conference in December, but the talks have stalled on the developed countries' reluctance to commit to concrete financial aid to developing countries and a lack of commitment to sufficient CO2 reduction targets.

The latest negotiating round in Bangkok was overshadowed by disagreements over the legal form of the future treaty (EurActiv 13/10/09). Developing countries lashed out at the EU, claiming that it was killing Kyoto by calling for a single agreement instead of the two-track approach of the Protocol, which does not oblige poor countries to make emission cuts.

At a summit last week (30 October), EU heads of state and government stated €100 billion a year would be needed by 2020 to fund efforts to cut emissions and adaptation to climate change in developing countries (EurActiv 30/10/09). Between €22 and €50 billion a year would have to come from international public financing, but how much the EU would fork out will depend on the outcome of Copenhagen, EU leaders said.

"I don't think we can get a legally binding agreement by Copenhagen. I think that we can get that within a year after Copenhagen," UN climate chief Yvo de Boer said on Thursday in an interview. Instead, some negotiators were suggesting that the agreement signed at the UN climate conference at the Danish capital in December would only be political.

"That does not diminish the importance of Copenhagen," said Andres Turesson, Sweden's chief climate negotiator. "In Copenhagen, we need an agreement and that agreement must contain the important contents of the future climate change regime."

Turesson, whose country currently holds the EU Presidency, was more optimistic than de Boer on what can be achieved in Copenhagen. He pointed out that the necessary institutions, binding commitments and the political resolve would have to be established in December.

But developing countries said they would not settle for a political agreement. They want to see a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, which set limits to industrialised countries' emissions.

"I do not know of anything called a politically binding agreement," said Lumumba Di-Aping, a Sudanese envoy and chair of the Group of 77 and China, according to reports.

Developing nations reasserted themselves, demanding clear targets from industrialised nations to cut emissions in the midterm. African nations blocked the talks at the start of the week, saying that all negotiations on mitigation actions should be halted until there are clear commitments from the rich countries to cut their emissions.

The US, in particular, came under pressure to clarify its targets (EurActiv 04/11/09). The country with the biggest historical responsibility for emissions was accused of hiding behind the Senate where its domestic climate legislation has been delayed. 

"We understand that the US – as everybody else, by the way (…) – has domestic processes," said Andres Turesson, Sweden's chief climate negotiator. "But it is nevertheless very important for a deal in Copenhagen to have the biggest emitter there with a concrete figure, which also should be legally binding."

EU's funding proposal 'peanuts'

The EU came into the talks with a funding plan agreed by the heads of state and government last month (EurActiv 30/10/09). According to observers, the bloc spent considerable time in bilateral talks with developing nations, clarifying its position.

But the EU's proposal to make between €22 and €50 billion of international public money available per year by 2020 to finance climate efforts in poor countries was dismissed as "peanuts".

The EU's proposal of specific emission reduction targets for the aviation and maritime sectors was a welcome boost to the talks on the issue, observers said. Developing countries welcomed the opening of discussion on using the two international sectors to raise funding for climate adaptation in poor countries.

WWF regretted the obsession of politicians with expressing what they cannot achieve rather than upping their efforts to save the planet. "Barcelona didn't achieve much spectacular, but it kept the pace of slow, steady progress. The key issue is not time, but political will and that can be shown in a matter of seconds," said Kim Carstensen, leader of WWF's global climate initiative.

Friends of the Earth accused rich countries of trying to ditch their emissions targets under the Kyoto Protocol. "The US must also take its place alongside other rich nations in pledging strong emissions cuts. The Obama administration's proposals for an alternative pledge and review system – where countries would propose targets for emissions targets – would leave us in the obscene situation of seeing a race to the bottom to see who can propose the lowest cuts," said Kate Horner, Friends of the Earth US policy analyst.

Oxfam warned that EU countries would have to cut themselves loose from the US to avoid losing a groundbreaking climate deal that has been in the making for two years already. "At the moment the US shadow is looming large over the climate talks.  Rich countries are clearly using the US as an excuse to put their national interests above alleviating the suffering of those millions of people killed, bereaved, hungry or made homeless by climate change," said Antonio Hill, Climate Advisor for Oxfam.

Climate Action Network Europe (CAN Europe) argued that time is not the issue. "The problem with negotiations now - and the solution- is political will. The urgency for world leaders to deliver results in Copenhagen remains," said Matthias Duwe, director of CAN Europe.