We’re assuming the 35 participating countries are a who’s who of who the Germans think are key for moving the climate solutions agenda forward. For those of you who couldn’t identify the minister’s and high-level government officials by face in the pictures released yesterday, Germany’s environment ministry just published the list of participants.  A few interesting titles on that list:

• Saudi Arabia’s minister of petroleum and mineral resources – perhaps further indication of what KSM views as the most significant climate impact on their country, climate solutions and demand for oil.
  
• Peru’s director general for climate – Peru was one of two main contenders for hosting next year’s COP, though rumor has it they aren’t having much success in finding supporters to back their bid.
  
• US’ special envoy for climate change – though not a surprising appearance, Todd Stern is the face of the US government’s push for a bottom-up 2015 deal. 

We’d love to read your thoughts on which countries on the list stand out and why. Feel free to put them in the comments below.

It terms of the actual substance of the 2-day talks, it’s difficult to draw conclusions. Co-chairs Marcin Korolec & Peter Altmaier produced a political summary which will be fed into the UNFCCC process later this year. None of the ideas referenced in the summary are new, but their showing up in this context could influence what gets increased traction going forward.  

Notably, there was an increase in the profile of energy efficiency and renewable energy. There was reference to Ban Ki-Moon’s 2014 leaders summit as a key moment for governments to increase their pledges for climate action. Ministers stressed that “without engagement from the general public and their acceptance for practical solutions proposed, the impetus behind more climate action will be lost and successful implementation will fail.” To that end, there were suggestions of that some sort of major stakeholder engagement could take place at the next Conference of Parties (COP) in Warsaw later this year.

Ministers emphasized that  ”long-term, stable and reliable policy signals are essential to drive investments.” Germany’s environment minister Peter Atmaier pointed the finger squarely at the EU, calling for an urgent solution to the price decline in EU carbon credits. He suggested that saving the EU emissions trading scheme would be crucial for inspiring and encouraging other states to follow suit.

Beyond being an opportunity for key government officials to continue their engagement on climate issues, this meeting was a chance for Poland’s environment minister Marcin Korolec to show that Poland is serious about addressing the threats of climate change and will use their upcoming COP presidency to demonstrate that seriousness.  While the Co-Chairs summary failed to give any obvious indications to that end, it’s perhaps notable that most of the deadlines for concrete deliverables needed for a 2015 climate deal come not during, but after Poland hosts the COP. 

Have a look at the full summary text below. 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, German Environment Minister Peter Altmaier, Polish Environment Minister Marcin Korolec. High-res & additional photos.

The Petersberg Dialogue has become an annual event, either following or preceding the Bonn Climate Change Conference that takes place every June. Ministers and high-level officials from 35 countries were invited to this year’s meeting, which aims to address four questions:

1. How can we shape an ambitious, effective and fair climate agreement with active participation from all countries by 2015, and implement it from 2020?

2. How can the UN climate process bring about more climate action at national level up to 2020, so that we can remain below the 2°C ceiling?

3. How can international climate policy create effective incentives for more private investment to advance the transformation towards a low-emission economy?

4. How can the climate change conference in Warsaw help us to achieve our main goals, and what are the most important milestones on the path to a new agreement in 2015?

Participants in this year’s Petersberg Climate Dialgogue. High-res & additional photos.

Perhaps indicative of how Poland’s government views the issue of climate change during a year they are set to host the annual Conference of Parties in Warsaw, Polands Prime Minister was invited to share the stage with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, but declined. Instead, all eyes are on Poland’s Environment Minister, Marcin Korolec. In a conversation last week with RTCC’s Ed King, who covers international climate policy:

There’s a chance for him to demonstrate that he’s committed to a climate deal that’s going to have some environmental integrity. It’s a big opportunity for him to demonstrate that.

RTCC has a piece out today digging into Poland’s role on the road to getting a global climate deal in 2015.

Korolec and German Environment Minister Peter Altmaier are expected to produce a political summary of the meeting, enabling the results to feed directly into the UN negotiations. They will host a closing press conference at 13:00 CET May 7th (livestreamed here).

I am however growingly concerned about one development of the talks during the past days. The negotiators of many countries have begun to consider how to accommodate the US intransigence. Building a strong legal framework might be a very impressive outcome; however it will have virtually no chance of being ratified by the US Senate thus making it impossible for the country to become a party to the legal agreement and leaving the door open for other conservative countries to follow suit. To avoid such a scenario, one could take the US position as a starting point, build on it to make it more ambitious and ensure that the country’s red lines are not crossed. Personally, I cannot help but fear however that, by leaving Capitol Hill defines the limits of what the world community can achieve, we will burry all chances to achieve emission reductions in line with the recommendations made by scientists. But before addressing the short-comings of this approach, let us begin by considering what the US proposes.

Bottom-up

The position of the United States is well articulated in its submission to the UN climate secretariat and can be summarized in two main points. First, the US expects “mitigation contributions” (the word that the US uses where others refer to “obligations” or “commitments”) from all countries – except perhaps for the least developed. Second, the country favors a bottom-up approach in which each country will be free to propose its own contributions. The scale of these contributions would be based on any “national circumstances” that the country considers relevant. A consultation period would then be organized during which parties and the public could compare and comment other countries’ submissions. Finally, countries will be offered the possibility to alter their proposals on the basis of these comments, but only if they so desire.

The approach raises several issues, the US itself acknowledging that the effectiveness of such a proposal might be considered counter-intuitive by others.
Leaving the countries free of identifying any possible circumstance to justify their low ambition is likely to result in a race to the bottom as even most creative excuses are tolerated. Since I began to attend the climate negotiations in 2008, I heard countries put forward the following parameters as justifying lower actions: being too cold a country, being too hot a country, being too large, being too small, having too many natural resources, not having natural resources… The idea of involving peer-pressure to motivate countries to raise their own ambitions is an interesting concept. However, one can reasonably doubt that it will produce little results when it comes to the biggest bullies of the class (starting with the US). Thirdly, the lack of a review process highlighting to what extent parties should increase their ambition could even lead to the opposite result than is expected: having countries reducing their original contribution in order to reserve for themselves the possibility to increase their ambition if subjective conditions are gathered during the “peer-review” phase. If, for one reason or another, the country subjectively considers that these conditions are not met, it might thus end up being bound to a lower level of commitment than would otherwise have been the case under another approach. The EU adopted such a strategy in the lead up to the Copenhagen conference when it offered to reduce its emissions by an additional 10% if others would commit under an international agreement. As the EU failed to leverage additional engagement from other countries, it refused to accept for itself a more stringent target and remains bound to the inadequate 20% emissions reductions proposed in 2008.

From one gap to another?

But most concerning, there is absolutely nothing in this proposal that would guarantee that the sum of these contributions would match the level of ambition that is required to preserve chances of avoiding dangerous climate change.

The international climate community already tested this approach in 2009, as the US managed indeed to convince their partners that voluntary commitments were the solution to the Copenhagen deadlock. This proposal, also called “pledge and review “, was formally endorsed by the UN one year later in the Cancun agreements. Parties were invited to fill a table with whatever target they would feel adequate for the reduction of their emissions. This led to the jaw-dropping gap of 33 gt of carbon between the sum of the offers and the recommendation made by scientists.

In this context, the only international review consists as verifying whether countries are matching the contributions that they committed to deliver. If the commitments proposed by countries do not match the level of action that scientists highlight as necessary to remain on a safe pathway, the review will only be able to confirm whether governments are policies are as inadequate as they suggested at first.

Taking science seriously

About half of the time spent by negotiators in the “Durban Platform” discussion (the current round of negotiations lasting between 2011 and 2015) is actually dedicated to seeking solutions to address the shortcomings of the pledge and review approach adopted four years ago. In this context, it is disturbing to witness the US and others arguing that we should replicate the same approach for the post 2020 timeframe. Einstein famously affirmed that “insanity consists in doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

If governments were sincere in their efforts to avoid dangerous climate change and were willing to pay more than lip-service its principles (among which the precautionary principle and intergenerational equity), they would need to have a serious discussion before 2015 to ensure that the sum of countries obligations does match expectations led out based on the latest science – something that is lacking from the US proposal. Luckily, the release over the coming months by the IPCC of its fifth assessment report will provide a solide update on climate science. During the recent years, the international community as used scientific reports mainly to evaluate the scale of the inadequacy of governments’ commitments. Hopefully, the ongoing negotiations will consider options to use scientific knowledge in a more proactive manner and define on its basis – in one way of another – what countries collectively need to do to avoid climate chaos.

Photo Credit: Janesdead, Marcus Hansson, Bart van de Biezen via Compfight cc

While the formal negotiations take place in the auditorium of the plenary hall, most interesting and enriching discussions take place in informal consultations and bilaterals between countries or with civil society. During each session, our colleagues from the Climate Action Network arrange meetings with each of the most influential negotiating coalition.

In parallel to the formal sessions, country delegates also keep in contact with their national capital, email back and forth to report back from the sessions and to receive additional instructions on the position to adopt.

In the early afternoon, the co-chairs facilitated a short plenary to draw some conclusions from the past days of discussions. They noted the usefulness of the participation of representatives from civil society in the workshops held in the beginning of the week, in particular in relation to their concrete proposals related to the establishment of an equity framework, an action plan for the participation of local government or to ensure the gender responsive of international climate policies.

From the negotiations, the chairs noted the need for negotiators to deepen their discussions in relation to many themes. In relation to the negotiations towards a new global climate agreement in 2015, topics to discuss further include the relation between top-down and bottom-up approaches (the subject of our next blog – visit us again), how the international regime can help leverage additional actions, and how the new agreement could strengthen adaptation policies.

As far as the scaling-up of short term ambition is concerned, the co-chairs also expressed their interest to discuss further the role of renewable energy and energy efficiency to foster low emissions development or the importance of climate finance and of political engagement to deliver adequate mitigation measures (among other themes).

The current co-chairs will continue to facilitate the negotiations for one more meeting. A new leadership will take over after the upcoming June session. Many observers are hoping for the organizing of an additional negotiating session in autumn that would allow for common-ground to be identified on as many issues as possible and avoid any procedural discussions during the Warsaw Climate Conference, next November. Funding is however still lacking at this stage to convey such an additional meeting.

Satisfy after what many negotiators consider as a productive week of discussions, the session was finally adjourned two hours before the official schedule. Delegates rapidly emptied the conference centre to enjoy a beautiful afternoon along the Rhine. The climate talks are however not suspended for long…

The negotiations will resume in just 4 weeks, returning back to their traditional venue: the infamous “Maritim” hotel. During the June sessions, negotiations will continue to build on the results of the discussions of the past week. In addition, two other bodies established under the climate convention will also be holding their sessions, promising a very hectic agenda. Before that, German chancellor will convey a ministerial consultation meeting – the “Petersberg Dialogue”.

Make sure to visit us again: during the June session Adopt A Negotiator will come with a full team of trackers to report back from the negotiations…

It’s like when you have just started dating someone new and can’t figure them out, ‘does she care about me or does she not?’.

Anyone following the current instalment of the UN climate change talks this week will be hoping for some progress but probably not sure where it is going to come from. The themes dominating talks this week have been mitigation and equity – see here for a great summary of equity in the talks.

The climate talks most topical area (ADP aka Durban Platform) concerns historical responsibilities and whether, or not, nations are translating their historical responsibility into emission reductions.

They are not.

This area of the talks should also look at the level of ambition in reduction targets we need to see on a global level. We are not seeing any strong mitigation efforts, there is a lack of trust between nations and we need leadership to get things moving. But there is currently no real leadership.

Unless you listen to all of the talk. Allllll of the mind-numbing talk…. and not just in plenary, where the negotiations take place, but also from our leaders and governments. The EU, who should be taking a lead in emissions reductions are not. But they confusingly tell us that they are.

UK, why will you not lead the way?

The EU seems to have lost its way in these talks. It is not the strong and ambitious block of countries that we want and need it to be. However, within the EU we also need to see some leadership. As much as we need the EU to inject some urgency into the current talks, we need the UK to inject some energy into the EU. But the UK is also failing us.

The UK, domestically, have more than lost their way…they have wilfully got lost and burned the map in a gas-fired power station. The current UK government declared they were going to be the “Greenest Government Ever”. To the credit of the Brits, we don’t believe they are.

Why is the UK letting us down so badly? Why is it letting down the EU and in turn letting down the whole process? Climate change is drifting from the UK political agenda on a domestic level. The world has high expectations of the EU and the UK at the UN climate talks. Neither is living up to these expectations.

Mixed messages

For all the talk at the UN, there is not enough mitigation being offered up by those who should really know better. For all the talk from the UK about being some sort of good guy in these talks they are doing pathetically poorly on a domestic level. The Greenest Government Ever has jumped into bed with an ever more powerful gas lobby – great way to put out a fire with gasoline. They have attempted to replace calls for more renewable energy (wind or solar) into campaigns for alternative energy cons (fracking, Carbon Capture Storage, nuclear). The Greenest Government Ever have voted against the EU at a European level for attempts to strengthen the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) (provoking the ire of some delegates at the ADP this week).

The United Kingdom is hiding from its responsibilities. It is hiding behind the EU at an international level and it is just hoping to hide climate change completely at a domestic level (Education Secretary in the UK is trying to remove climate change from the school curriculum!).

How can the UK perform so poorly domestically yet tell us they are so Green? How can the UK paint themselves as good guys at international talks yet not step up to their own historical obligations when the progress of the talks demands it? These mixed messages are more than confusing, they are obscene.

There is a great opportunity in the Durban Platform for some leadership to be shown that will start to repair the breakdown in trust and provide the climate talks with some sort of meaningful pathway to avoiding further catastrophic climate change.

So, like I said, I am confused just now… EU – do you really not care about me? And UK? I thought we were getting somewhere…but they you turn your back on me like this. Show us you care…

During the fourth day of the Bonn climate talks, negotiators spent most of the day discussing mitigation, both in relation to the need to increase short-term ambition to fill the mitigation gap and as an element of the future global climate agreement.

During the roundtable on the need to raise short-term mitigation, the Kenyan delegate reminded developed countries that the first logical step to do so would be for the developed countries to raise the level of ambition of their commitments.

The nomination of John Kerry as US State Secretary, who had been actively engaged in efforts to obtain a new climate legislation in the US, led many observers to hope that the country will engage more constructively in the talks. Kerry’s arrival at the State department was followed by the nomination of a new lead negotiator for the US delegation: Trigg Talley (see here for my critical appraisal of the US position).

During the lunch break, the co-chairs of the ADP hosted a consultation with stakeholders. This event was presented as the most important opportunity for civil society to share its perspectives and expectations, including on social media. The co-chairs (and Christiana Figueres for part of the session) listened to the visions and hopes for the climate negotiations from colleagues representing a wide range of communities and groups, from farmers to women organizations, including environmental NGOs, trade unions and local governments.

Luke Kemp, speaking for YOUNGO – the youth constituency at the climate talks, explained the importance to consider equity not only among nations but also from an intergenerational equity perspective. He offered a concrete proposal to make this possible in practical terms at the UNFCCC.

Discussions in the afternoon offered the opportunity for more countries to share their views on the topic of the day. The EU for instance detailed a little further its proposal of a “spectrum of commitment” to be agreed in the new climate deal.

Among the most hardworking observers attending every single negotiating session: the Earth Negotiation Bulletin (ENB) team of iisd prepare daily reports of the negotiations (a report covering all the week was released shortly after the end of the session) as well as a very useful daily overview of some of the key moments.