THE UN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE: COP-15 _4_Eng.pdf · The UN Climate Change Conference (UNCCC),...

Mankind had a rendezvous with

its own future !!! The UN Climate Change Conference (UNCCC), commonly known as the Copenhagen Summit, included the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP-15) to the UNFCCC and the 5th Meeting of the Parties (COP/MOP-5) to the Kyoto Protocol. According to the Bali Road Map, a highly anticipated framework for climate change mitigation beyond 2012 was to be agreed there. Rarely has an international conference mobilized so many people and so much energy: delegates from 194 countries, including some 119 Heads of State and Government; over 40,000 civil society activists, including 21.000 observers and 5.000 journalists; as well as a demonstration by nearly 50.000 people in Copenhagen. The Copenhagen Summit had one critical goal: to achieve a global treaty to help cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to levels that will prevent dangerous rises in global temperatures and potential catastrophic climate damage.

œCopenhagen Is Not Just About

Climate Change -- It's About the

What Kind of People

We Want to BeB George Monbiot, the author of

“Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning” More...at www.monbiot.com

IInn tthhiiss iissssuuee::

CCooppeennhhaaggeenn UUNN CClliimmaattee CChhaannggee CCoonnffeerreennccee PPrreessss RReelleeaassee:: SSttaatteemmeenntt ooff MMrr.. AArraamm HHaarruuttyyuunnyyaann,, MMiinniisstteerr ooff NNaattuurree PPrrootteeccttiioonn aanndd HHeeaadd ooff tthhee AArrmmeenniiaann DDeelleeggaattiioonn

DDeecciissiivvee MMoommeennttss iinn CCooppeennhhaaggeenn NNoonn--bbiinnddiinngg CClliimmaattee DDeeaall SSttrruucckk aatt CCooppeennhhaaggeenn

CCooppeennhhaaggeenn AAccccoorrdd AArrgguummeennttss ffoorr SSkkeeppttiiccss PPoolliittiiccaall IImmmmoobbiilliittyy FFaacceedd WWiitthh CCiittiizzeenn MMoobbiilliizzaattiioonn

Published by: Climate Change Information Center of Armenia

Developed by: ' Women for Green Way for Generations’ NGO

Online at www.nature-ic.am www.wgwg.am

Climate Change Newsletter - Armenia Number 4, 2010

TTHHEE UUNN CCLLIIMMAATTEE CCHHAANNGGEE CCOONNFFEERREENNCCEE:: CCOOPP--1155

Climate Change Newsletter – Armenia Number 4, 2010

2

Millions of people around the world hoped that “Hopenhagen” would be a turning point in the battle against

climate change

CChhiinnaa UUSSAA EEUU RRuussssiiaa

JJaappaann IInnddiiaa CCaannaaddaa BBrraazziill

From the outset, there was talk about a “Danish text” which has been described as a dangerous document for developing countries. The document abandons the Kyoto Protocol, sidelines and weakens the role of the UN in CC negotiations, and hands most of the power to rich countries. In anticipation of text for a Copenhagen Agreement, many negotiating groups and ad hoc coalitions began working on their own texts. At the same time some parallel high-level developed country initiatives confused official negotiators. This led to a loss of trust among the negotiating parties. European civil society groups were especially disappointed that the EU – the conventional leader in CC diplomacy –did not show more leadership. If Europe had put at least a 30% emissions reduction target on the table at the right moment, some real progress might have been achieved. Leading by example, the EU had committed to implement binding legislation, even without a satisfactory deal in Copenhagen.

From 16-17 December, the high-level segment heard statements by Heads of

Governments and delegations, starting with statements from representatives of the

main negotiating groups.

Continuation...on page 4

Widely Disputed Aspects of a Deal: Levels of climate finance and its long-term governance.

Discussions around targets for emissions reduction.

The threshold at which to limit average global temperature increase.

The introduction of a brand new treaty, or upgrade of the existing Kyoto Protocol.

CCooppeennhhaaggeenn UUNN CClliimmaattee CChhaannggee CCoonnffeerreennccee:: CCOOPP--1155

he COP-15 was, in many ways, a historic event. It marked the culmination of two years

of intensive negotiations under the auspices of the UNFCCC and the Bali Roadmap, which was agreed in 2007. Attendance by the majority of the world’s leaders in Copenhagen – the largest gathering of heads of state and government in the history of the UN – showed that climate change (CC) is a core issue. The conference was also subject to unprecedented public and media attention. The attention given to this summit was worthy of the biggest agenda of COP-15: map out a strategy for reducing global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that trap the sun's heat; adopt a new, legally binding agreement on the CC; and lay the foundation for the climate regime beyond 2012. Many hoped that the Copenhagen Summit would be able to “seal the deal” and result in a fair, ambitious and equitable agreement, setting the world towards a path to avoid dangerous and irreversible CC in the future. The UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo De Boer opened the conference warning that Copenhagen must be the right history. “The clock has ticked down to zero. After two years of negotiation, the time has come to deliver,” he said. A four minute video produced especially for the opening featuring a young girl traumatized by nightmares of a world ravaged by drought and floods and children of the future facing an apocalypse of CC, was designed to shock the 15,000-strong crowd into action. The starting gun was fired. The climate talks have opened with a declaration that the 12 days of negotiations represent a significant opportunity for the world, but deep divisions between delegates have already emerged. The COP-15 was a meeting about greenhouse gases (GHG) insulating the atmosphere, but it was also a battle between two world views. It has been clear for some time that global agreement would not materialize in Copenhagen as a result of the ongoing contention associated with many of the issues on the negotiating table.

T

CCooppeennhhaaggeenn:: TThhee MMaaiinn PPllaayyeerrss


3

PPrreessss RReelleeaassee SSTTAATTEEMMEENNTT

MMrr.. AArraamm HHaarruuttyyuunnyyaann HHeeaadd ooff AArrmmeenniiaann DDeelleeggaattiioonn

MMiinniisstteerr ooff NNaattuurree PPrrootteeccttiioonn ooff tthhee RReeppuubblliicc ooff AArrmmeenniiaa CCOOPP--1155 ttoo tthhee UUNNFFCCCCCC aanndd CCOOPP//MMOOPP--55 ttoo tthhee KKyyoottoo PPrroottooccooll

CCooppeennhhaaggeenn,, DDeennmmaarrkk,, 1177 DDeecceemmbbeerr 22000099

Mr. President, Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and gentlemen,

Since the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change came into effect, it took ten years to produce a mandatory legal document, Kyoto Protocol - a first step towards achievement of the Convention’s objective. Currently, we are going to make the next step. High pace of carbon accumulation in the atmosphere and consequences of global warming make it evident that measures for reduction and limitation of greenhouse gas emissions should be hastened and strengthened. Armenia, as a developing non-Annex I country, obviously does not have quantitative commitments on reduction or limitation of greenhouse gas emissions and participates in the process “indirectly” in the frames of the Kyoto protocol via the Clean Development Mechanism. Armenia has been actively involved in implementation of projects under the Clean Development Mechanism. The Government of Armenia has assigned Designated National Authority, five projects are registered by Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board, and four of them are under implementation. We consider Clean Development Mechanism as an instrument with great capacity to promote sustainable development as it tends to attract investments in those sectors of economy and social development where business as usual investments are limited. Nevertheless, the Mechanism needs improvement to simplify extremely complicated and expensive procedures for project validation, avoid possible “carbon leakage”, ensure environmental integrity and make sure that the process is transparent and accessible for the society. Referring to Armenia’s position on issues of further implementation of the Convention on Climate Change, we would like to emphasize the necessity to consolidate efforts of all the countries to achieve the very objective of the Convention, mentioned in its second article. We consider “common, but differentiated” approach to be fair as it respects both the different level of responsibility for climate change consequences and great differences of economic and social development of the countries concerned. Due to the deep crisis in early 90s of the past century, Armenia had to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more than five times compared to the baseline year of 1990. Later, due to structural shifts in industry and transition to low-carbon fuel in energy and transport sectors, emissions grew insignificantly. Therefore, further economic growth was not accompanied with corresponding increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Armenia, to the extent possible, will continue to undertake measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions. In case of adequate financial and technological support by developed countries and with access to two flexibility mechanisms – “emissions trading” and “joint implementation" – we, staying in our status of a non-Annex I developing country and building on the principle of sustainable development, are ready to take voluntary commitments not to reduce, but limit the growth of greenhouse gas emissions compared with their current level. We stated our adherence to this approach yet in Montreal on the 1st Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, and we are pleased to see it basically in line with the spirit of the current negotiations. We see it as fair and prospective. As for adaptation to climate change, to our opinion, a choice should be made here and a long-term sustainable path to achieve our objectives should be chosen, which is to adhere to the “ecosystem approach”. It is a win-win approach ensuring synergy with other global and regional Conventions and, as we see, it can serve as an impartial and reliable platform for negotiating and reaching agreements on joint cooperative actions both on global and regional levels. In order to meet the immediate needs of developing countries to respond to the Copenhagen outcomes and meet most urgent capacity needs, particularly in adaptation and technology transfer, it is of great importance to establish an operational financing mechanism. It could build on the UN multi-donor Trust Fund ensuring equitable representation in decision making. At the end, let me express my appreciation of hospitality to the Government and people of Denmark as well as my confidence that climate change prevention efforts of countries, whose representatives gathered in hospitable Copenhagen, will not go in vain. Thank you very much for your attention.


4

So, China’s decisions in the next few years will have a huge impact on the world’s ability to prevent dangerous CC. New geopolitical configuration illustrated in Copenhagen via the shifts in the traditional balance of power and governance issues. The principal negotiations took place among about 30 countries and the biggest breakthrough involved just five – the USA, China, India, Brazil and South Africa.

after 12 days of intense negotiations Copenhagen did not deliver the climate treaty so badly needed by the world. This led a smaller group of Heads of States, representing the major emittingcountries, in late night on 18 December to elaborate – behind closed doors and outside of the UN negotiating process – the political agreement entitled the “Copenhagen Accord” (CA). It was drafted in the final hours of the conference by twenty-odd leaders (collectively responsible for more than 80% of global GHG emissions) convened by the Danish Prime Minister as ‘Friends of the Chair’. US President Barack Obama describedthe CA as “meaningful” and “unprecedented.” On 19 December, during the 13 hours-long closing plenary, a last-minute deal – agreed by leaders from the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa – was presented to all the participating 194 Parties. It was signed by about 30 countries, including all of the world's major economies, but had yet gained consensus among all Parties to the Convention. Some developing countries characterized the CA as an “untransparent” and “undemocratic” negotiating process.

The world’s attention had been focused on whether or not the meeting would succeed in establishing a framework of legally binding emission reductions, in particular, upon the US, which had explicitly announced that it had no intention to return to the Kyoto Protocol, and developing countries without binding targets under the Kyoto, such as China, India and other newly emerging economies with remarkably rapid growth. The most crucial issue was whether the US and China, both accounting for about 20% of global GHG emissions, could reach a common understanding. As the world’s largest emitter, China’s acceptance of any agreement was indispensable. Meanwhile, China is still a developing economy, and it could also assume leadership in the context of developing countries. China rejected criticism for its reluctance to accept mandatory caps to its GHG emissions saying that it is the duty of the developed world. India confirmed it had worked with China and other emerging nations to ensure there were no legally binding targets from the climate talks.

Negotiating a Kyoto-Plus Agreement The Kyoto Protocol (2005-2012) relied on the principle that rich nations – responsible for the bulk of GHG emissions – can and should be compelled to take on the biggest burden of cutting those emissions. Poorer nations were not required to act at all.

The times have changed since the Kyoto era. The problems can no longer be resolved without rapidly growing developing countries sharing the burden.

Considering that a peak in emissions reduction must occur in about 2015-2017 if global warming is to be held below the dangerous threshold of 20C, it is necessary to reach an ambitious and robust agreement on the post-2012 regime with binding CO2 reduction targets for both, industrialized and emerging economies.

DDeecciissiivvee MMoommeennttss iinn CCooppeennhhaaggeenn

ue to the length of the final agreement and the lack of consensus on most of their provisions,

Top Emitters annual GHG emissions/per capita

(tons)

CCHHIINNAA:: 66..88 bbiilllliioonn // 55..55 UUSSAA:: 66..44 bbiilllliioonn // 2211..22 EEUU:: 55..00 bbiilllliioonn // 1100..22 RRUUSSSSIIAA:: 11..77 bbiilllliioonn // 1111..99 IINNDDIIAA:: 11..44 bbiilllliioonn // 11..22 JJAAPPAANN:: 11..44 bbiilllliioonn // 1111..00

BBRRAAZZIILL:: 111111 mmiilllliioonn // 00..66

D

US President Barack Obama: “What we have achieved in Copenhagen will not be the end, but the beginning”

(Photo: AFP)

Where's the Action? A sleeping delegate at the UN Climate

Summit in Copenhagen (Photo: Shutterstock)


5

A Mock One Dollar Bill Government leaders have so far failed to agree on how to finance the fight against

climate change (Photo: Reuters)

Leaders from the island states of the Indian and Pacific Oceans, the Caribbean and Mediterranean Seas have stated: "It is really an ethical question we are faced with now. A failure to act is sort of really a benign genocide in a sense." Bolivia’s President Evo Morales stated: “...I would not say that the Summit has failed, but rather that it is a triumph for the entire world because the developed capitalist countries could not impose their statement.” “CC is a product of the capitalist system, which favors the pursuit of the maximum possible profit ...with no consideration for the lives of others,” he added. Chief negotiator for the G77 group of developing countries said the deal had “the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It's nothing sort of CC skepticism in action. It locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever.” He also called the $US 10 billion on the table to help the poorer countries an insult. "Ten billion dollars under the current scenarios will not buy the poor of developing countries coffins, let alone address the serious problems that this challenge is causing," he said. John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: “The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport. It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one on display here.” Lydia Baker of “Save the Children” said: “World leaders had effectively signed a death warrant for many of the world's poorest children. Up to 250,000 children from poor communities could die before the next major meeting in Mexico at the end of next year."

Climate Treaty: Show Me the Money!

Disputes over money helped sink the COP-15. Who has to pay what to whom was a key point.

Here is what was demanded or promised.

Climate politics is a numbers game: it’s about temperatures, emissions, and allowances.

But the most important numbers are, possibly, the ones preceded by dollar or Euro signs.

NNoonn--bbiinnddiinngg CClliimmaattee DDeeaall SSttrruucckk aatt CCooppeennhhaaggeenn

hen the Accord was presented to the COP for adoption, its text and the procedure

immediately faced strong criticism. The CA was rejected categorically by, among others, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Sudan, Tuvalu and Venezuela. They argued so both the manifest procedural irregularities in the negotiation of this document, as well as the substantive weaknesses they perceived in it. Sudan called the Accord “a suicide note for Africa,” comparing it to the Holocaust. This didn’t go down well with many delegates, but frustration over the weak deal was widespread. “Africa believes that the other groups are not taking talks seriously enough, not urgently enough,” said delegate from Congo and accused rich nations in failing to do enough to combat CC that is likely to hit the poor hardest with more hunger and water shortage.

W

When Sudan and several Central and South American countries objected to the Accord, the meeting became a forum for blame games between those in support of and those against it In the end, the document was “taken note of” as a “letter of intent”, but not “adopted” by the assembled delegates. So, the deal is a non-binding declaration without commitments from any government and ambitious roadmap for reducing emissions. Finally, the Accord was concluded as a political agreement that did not impose any penalties or obligations, but showed the way towards a new structure. Although the COP-15 fell short of the high expectations to deliver a UN-level agreement, the results that have been achieved should not be underestimated. “We have sealed the deal. This Accord cannot be everything that everyone hoped for, but it is an essential beginning,” said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Most delegates, however, left Copenhagen disappointed. There is little doubt that the COP-15 left its mark in history – never before has CC featured so prominently on the international agenda. However, feelings about the outcomes are, at best, mixed and some, even, consider the Conference to be a failure and believe that this was just a “face-saving” technique, so that the leaders could say they had accomplished something. In fact, the Accord does not represent a broad political consensus that could be translated into an active treaty. The bad news is that we have lost another valuable year without a global emissions control regime. But the good news is that we avoided worse. Copenhagen is over but the debate over climate issues is not! It has been said that summits are either “successful” or “very successful.” This is wrong! That is not to say that Copenhagen was a failure, but merely that it could have done better. However it still, probably, passed the test. The final verdict will depend on what happens next.

The next UNFCCC COP-16 will take place by the end of 2010 in Cancun, Mexico,

preceded by a major two week negotiating session in Bonn, Germany scheduled

31 May to 11 June. 2010.


6

Establishment of a Copenhagen Green Climate Fund (CGCF) as an operating entity of the Convention in all major areas. A significant portion of new funding will flow through the CGCF; Establishment of a High Level Panel accountable to the COP to assess sources of funding; Technology Mechanism that is country - driven to accelerate technology transfer; Forestry mechanism, including REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation), to mobilize finance from developed countries.

The CA contains two annexes: emission reductionpledges from developed countries for the year 2020, andemission reduction actions from developing countries(both supported and autonomous). This means thatmitigation targets set at national level are subject tointernational scrutiny The Parties have been asked to formalize their pledgesby the soft deadline 31 January, 2010. As of 1 February2010 more than 120 countries which produce about 80%of global GHG emissions – including major emergingeconomies – have submitted their voluntary pledges andaction plans for reducing emissions via the “Pledge andReview” process. A number of Parties have stated an“intention” to do so. More... at www.unfccc.int. Although the CA has been criticized, it represents a potentially essential breakthrough. On one side, developed countries agreed to put new significant funds on the table for CC mitigation and adaptation (30 billionUSD for 2010-2012, and 100 billion USD by 2020), andcommitted to implement national emissions targets, which will be internationally listed. On the other side, developing countries agreed, for the first time, to reflect their mitigation actions in an international instrument. On the downside, the Accord, however, contains no specific date on when a post-Kyoto treaty has to be ready. It doesn’t say where the money for the long-term climate fund should come from and who will manage it.

CChhiinnaa OOffffeerrss:: China announced it would cut its carbon intensity by 40 to 45% compared to 2005 levels. But it is resisting calls from developed countries for these cuts to be monitored and verified. DDeemmaannddss:: China says the emissions reduction targets of the industrialized countries are too low. It wants deeper cuts of at least 40% from 1990 levels. Additionally, China wants more financial aid for developing nations and green technology exchange.

Even such a loose agreement, as long as it engaged the US and China in mitigation action, was determined the better solution against the Kyoto Protocol, which without their involvement could not work as an effective mechanism. These achievements provide a good basis toadvance the negotiations under the UNFCCC towards the next CC conference in Mexico. Though, negotiators still need to overcome the distress caused due the lack of dealin Copenhagen. Significant efforts will be needed on all sides for rebuilding trust among the Parties, confidence in the science and to make progress where we can.

Good to Know Without GHG, average temperatures on Earth would be -18°C;

Carbon dioxide is responsible for about 70% of additional man-made global warming;

Most scientists say that global warming of more than 2°C would be disastrous.

CCooppeennhhaaggeenn AAccccoorrdd

Copenhagen Summit ends with political non-legally binding agreement

to cap temperature rise, reduce emissions and raise finance

he main outcome of COP-15 was the “Copenhagen Accord” (CA) – a political

declaration on CC, covering most of the major areas that have been under UNFCCC sessions since 2005. The document provides guidance and direction to the negotiations under the UNFCCC and determines some operational elements. It contains 12 paragraphs in just over two pages.

The Copenhagen Accord key provisions: An agreement to limit CC to not more than 2°C above preindustrial levels in the context of sustainable development and equity, with a view to strengthening this goal to 1.5°C after a review by 2015; Recognition of the need for a global peaking year for emissions, including that this timeframe will be longer in developing countries; A reaffirmation of the developmental aspects of CC, including low-emissions development strategies; Creation of a registry in which mitigation, technology, and capacity building measures seeking international support will be recorded. These actions will be subject to international measuring, reporting, and verification (MRV). Unsupported actions will be subject to domestic MRV and not included in the registry; Developing countries will communicate both supported, as well as unsupported mitigation actions, through National Communications every two years; Declaration that approaching 30 billion USD of additional “fast start” money from a variety of sources will be delivered to developing countries over 2010 – 2012, including forestry financing; New adaptation funding will flow through effective and efficient fund arrangements, with equal representation in its governance system; The goal of providing 100 billion USD annually by 2020. This and fast start funding will be subject to MRV;

T


7

Solar Flares

Solar activity is shown in an image made by NASA's Coronagraph

(Photo: Reuters)

Small changes in the energy output of the sun over the 11-year solar cycle can have a major impact on global weather patterns that could be predicted years in advance. The difference in energy between a solar maximum and

minimum is only about 0.1%. Using a complex computer models, scientists showed that even a small increase in the sun's energy can intensify wind and rainfall patterns. They found that during periods of strong solar activity the air in the upper atmosphere – stratosphere – heats up. The data also confirmed that an increase of 1oC makes the Earth warmer now than it has been for a thousand years. Out of the 20 warmest years on record, 19 have occurred since 1980. The three hottest years ever observed occurred in the last ten years. A temperature rise as fast as the one we have seen over the last 30 years has never happened before. Moreover, according to natural effects like solar cycles, normally the Earth should now be in a cool-down-period, not in a heating-up phase. The next solar peak is expected in May 2013. All these facts lead scientists to infer that the current global warming is not a natural occurrence. “Man is responsible,” they say. The most recent IPCC report delivered a huge blow to global warming skeptics. Leading climate scientists are now 90% sure that human activity is heating up the planet. They present various scenarios that show where global warming could take us by the end of the century. The choice is ours, as this is about much more than CC. This is about us!

AArrgguummeennttss ffoorr SSkkeeppttiiccss

he scientific view on anthropogenic dangerous impact on the climatic system continued to be

argued by skeptics, who immediately seized on leaked information from the CC Unit of Britain's University of East Anglia referring to changes in the sun’s radiation to account for global warming. This has led to an increase in skepticism and mistrust on the part of the public. Saudi Arabia's negotiator addressed the COP-15, claiming there were still questions around the man-made global warming and that “Climate-gate” episode had shaken trust in the scientific literature. But his American counterpart strongly disagreed. “...it is in fact shameful ...some scientists who have devoted their lives are being pilloried in the press without due regard to the process,” he said. Recent debates in the media about supposed ‘alarmism’ and the ‘manipulation’ of climate research do not alter the scientific facts about CC or the justification for the 2°C guard rail. Although scientists have found fluctuation in the sun’s radiation, its effects are nearly 20 times weaker than human-induced warming.

Global Temperature Changes During the 20th Century

o The blue line depictures only changes due to natural forcing triggered by solar activity and volcanoes. o The red line is made up of changes induced by natural and anthropogenic sources.

(Graphic: IPCC AR4, 2007)

T

Armenia AArrmmeenniiaa,, aass aa ddeevveellooppiinngg ccoouunnttrryy aanndd NNoonn-- AAnnnneexx11 PPaarrttyy ttoo UUNNFFCCCCCC,,

wwiitthh ccoonnssiiddeerraattiioonn ooff tthhee ddeecciissiioonn aaddoopptteedd bbyy tthhee CCOOPP--1155 tthhaatt ttooookk nnoottee ooff tthhee CCooppeennhhaaggeenn AAccccoorrdd ((CCAA)) ooff DDeecceemmbbeerr 1188tthh,, 22000099,,

aassssoocciiaatteedd iittsseellff wwiitthh tthhee CCAA aanndd pprreesseenntteedd nnaattiioonnaallllyy aapppprroopprriiaattee mmiittiiggaattiioonn aaccttiioonnss iinn JJaannuuaarryy 2299,, 22001100

AAccttiioonnss:: Implementation of “The National Program on Energy Saving and Renewable Energy of the Republic of Armenia” (2007);

Expansion of electrical transport and increase of the of the natural gas share in motor transport’s fuel;

Decrease in methane emissions from solid municipal waste and waste water; Restoration of degraded forests, afforestation and reducing the volumes

of deforestation, sustaining soil CO2 content and ensuring its increase.


8

PPoolliittiiccaall IImmmmoobbiilliittyy FFaacceedd WWiitthh CCiittiizzeenn MMoobbiilliizzaattiioonn

openhagen brought together not only official representatives, but also over 40,000

participants representing inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academia, the private sector, and media With the Conference ending in failure, one must note the unprecedented process of collective mobilization, the strong attendance, the convergence of citizen movements and the media coverage. The real leadership in Copenhagen existed among the thousands of grassroots activists who were there to frame the climate crisis in terms of equity, as the causes and effects of CC are distributed unequally across the globe. The activists were increasingly realizing the importance and value in partnering with one another to address a broad spectrum of issues related to CC. Equally impressive was the commitment and investment of dozens of funders.

While politicians failed to change the Status Quo in COP-15, an enormous amount of work remains to be done before people can believe that the world has seen a turning point in the fight against CC.

The goal is to achieve a consensus position to be raised at the next Summit on Climate Change to be held in Mexico in December 2010.

C

In the meeting of the presidents, Venezuela’s president Hugo Chávez

repeated two slogans raised by the people in the streets:

“Change the system, not the climate” and “If the climate were a bank

they would have saved it by now.”

An organization was formed “Change the System, Not the Climate”

which issued the “People’s Declaration in Klimaforum09”

Protesters shout at police officers blocking a road during a demonstration

outside the UNCCC. December 16, 2009

(Reuters)

Only a very limited number of civil society delegates were allowed to access the venue during the Conference. Many NGO representatives were angry, arguing that their exclusion from the negotiations at such a critical moment was not good for the outcome. Large and at times violent demonstrations took place in Copenhagen as people urged the world’s leaders to reach a meaningful agreement. In the international demonstration on December 12, there were 100,000 people concerned about CC. The meeting was preceded by massive demonstrations in other countries. Many left Copenhagen disappointed with the inaction of governments, but they were inspired by the resolution of the social movements represented there.

World Leaders Failed Climate and People's Health

At the Copenhagen talks the high-powered health delegation

led by Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and Health Care without Harm (HCWH) met for regular organized briefings and

helped make the “Prescription for a Healthy Planet”

more widely known.

The "Prescription" was handed to the WHO during an original

event organized by medical students.


9

Khazer

TThhee AAccttiivviittiieess ooff sseevveerraall AArrmmeenniiaann NNGGOOss

NGOs have an important role in bridging between science, society, and policy makers,

as well as in raising awareness and increasing the impact of their projects.

A conference titled “Towards Copenhagen” was organized by “Khazer” ecological and cultural NGO on October 15-16, 2009 in Yerevan. It aimed at bringing together Armenian environmental NGOs as well as state and local governmental bodies to discuss CC issues in Armenia and all over the world, discuss local and international ongoing processes under the UNFCCC and formulate a position by environmental NGOs on the threshold of the COP-15. The attendees of the Conference included representatives of international organizations, ministries, state agencies, Yerevan Municipality, local governing bodies, higher and other educational institutions, environmental NGOs (more than 40), as well as coordinators of Aarhus centers and mass media (more than 120 people). The Conference was supported by the UNDP-Armenia, OSCE-Yerevan office, UNIDO-Armenia and Armenia branch of WWF. The key outcome of the two-day Conference was adoption of a position concept on CC issues by Armenian environmental NGOs. It was also agreed to continue discussions on the problem after the Copenhagen Conference to elucidate the results of the COP-15 and identify further steps and activities to be undertaken.

In 2009-2010 the NGO “Women for Green Way for Generations” (WGWG) on environment, health and sustainable development implemented a wide advocacy campaign throughout Armenia titled “Climate Change: Each One of Us Has a Role to Play” under support of the World Bank’s (Yerevan Office) Civil Society Fund. The overarching goal of the project was to raise awareness and increase knowledge among broad array of population in Armenia about causes and consequences of CC and ways of combating it, as well as to contribute to the process of mainstreaming CC mitigation and adaptation practices in development strategies and policies, and to the enhancement of national capacities to combat CC in Armenia for the benefit of present and coming generations. The number of project beneficiaries amounted more than 500 people, including: youth (educating youth is an important investment in the sustainable future of any country); NGO’s (the most active consumers of the information); local authorities, scientists, teachers, medical workers, representatives of business and farmers, etc. (a strong team for integrating knowledge, building partnership and strengthening the national environmental movement).

The “Armenian Women for Health and Healthy Environment “(AWHHE) NGO has found a solution to what they call the "energy poverty" that is associated with CC in rural communities, namely solar energy. In 2008 - 2009 AWHHE implemented a joint project with “Women in Europe for Common Future” (WECF) called “Solar Energy in Armenia” that was financially supported by the German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Protection and Nuclear Safety. The goal of the project was to contribute to energy saving through the use of alternative energy sources (solar energy). The women‘s organization has worked with solar energy experts to set up an innovative and decentralized solar energy panel and plant at the kindergarten in Solak village. The Mayor of the village also contributed to the project by laying the water pipeline, because the kindergarten even didn’t have cold water supply. The new plant saves the kindergarten money and means, as hot water is more available all the year around, children‘s health benefits from reduction of unhealthy fire smoke, including the one originating from plastics burning. Teachers and kitchen staff also benefit, and a sense of hope has emerged in the entire community. The project has shown that communities can act to withstand the hard living standards associated with CC. As part of a follow-up project, the families of some of the children have installed solar panel own houses. The project won a prize in “Climate Protection” category at the second competition on good practice in children’s heath and the environment (CEHAPE) at the Fifth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health in Parma, Italy, 2010.


10

CCoouunncciill ooff tthhee PPoollaarr BBeeaarrss

Coping after Copenhagen: Maximizing Mexico!

More... at www.videoportal.unu.edu/425

Materials and photos used: www.abc.net.au; www.allianz.com; www.climaticoanalysis.org; www.cop15.panda.org; www.climateactiontracker.org;

www.climateandcapitalism.com; www.env-health.org; www.tiempocyberclimate.org/newswatch; www.ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/copenhagen; www.gret.org; www.germanwatch.org/klima;

www.guardian.co.uk/environment; www.m1e.net; www.no-burn.org/cc; www.nature-ic.am; www.noharm.org/europe; www.papers.ssrn.co; www.unfcc.int; www.wbgu.de/wb gupp2010en; www.worldwatch.org

Developed by the working group of e-journal “WGWG-info”, “Women for Green Way for Generations” NGO

Tel.: (374 99) 580280, Web: www.wgwg.am , E-mail: [email protected] Prepared under the “Enabling Activities for the Preparation of Armenia’s Second National Communication

to the UNFCCC” UNDP/GEF/00035196 Project #3 Governmental bldg., Republic Sq., Yerevan 0010, Armenia, Tel.: (37410) 583932, 583920, Fax: (37410) 583933

Web: www.nature-ic.am , E-mail: [email protected]

From ‘Hopenhagen’ to ‘Brokenhagen’ to ‘Tokenhagen’

THE UN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE: COP-15 _4_Eng.pdf · The UN Climate Change Conference (UNCCC),...

Documents

Transcript of THE UN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE: COP-15 _4_Eng.pdf · The UN Climate Change Conference (UNCCC),...