SUBSCRIBERS
Complimentary Resources
Carbon Edge Dictionary, previous edition
Hastening Slowly - Our Copenhagen Midpoint Update
Anyone who spent any time in the last few days reading the newspaper reports or watching the TV news could be forgiven for thinking Copenhagen is a multi-ringed circus surrounded by a massive and sometimes violent sideshow.
Its true that the 'carny folk' from central casting are out in force in Copenhagen (about 20,000 of them in fact) and for journalists who have to file a story every day, some days they may provide the only story and picture opportunity of the day. But truth is, the sideshows are not the circus and most of the major circus performers will not come into contact with anyone but their fellow performers. That is even more the case now the UN has decided to dramatically restrict access to the Conference centre.
So, when a journalist tells you that nothing is going to happen, they are really telling you that no one is talking to them. And there is a reason for that. When there is no news, there is progress because instead of briefing journalists, negotiators are negotiating.
These negotiations are glacial and progress is measured just in lines of completed text, sometimes individual words and occasionally whether the word is italicised or underlined. Global climate negotiations are not going to be revolutionary and they are not impacted in the least by protest action on the streets of Copenhagen, no matter how many people are involved or how violent they get. But security is another issue.
Underscoring the real relevance or irrelevance of the majority of the observers, our correspondents advise that from Tuesday Copenhagen time, access to the Conference venue is limited for the 20,000 registered observers. With a total of 33,000 people registered, the venue is over flowing and access passes are being rationed. Perhaps some will learn the limits of their influence. Such a security issue has the mass of observers become that from Thursday, CarbonEdge understands almost no observers will be allowed into the Conference centre. The problem this creates is that the genuine negotiators and global stakeholders will be excluded with the riff and the raff from the street.
Will there be an agreement?
At this point in the Bali conference in 2007, there was every prospect that there were not even going to be further meetings. But goodwill, aspiration and perspiration overcame indifference and these vast negotiations rolled on.
Legally binding outcomes at Copenhagen were always going to be difficult. The UN climate change head Yvo de Boer said as much before the Conference began.
Thus, it seems near impossible that a binding deal will be reached, but the nature of progress is not so absolute. The new language is towards a 'political agreement'. Measuring progress in black and white - agreement versus no agreement - is not clever where the issues are complex and the parties vast in number and sophisticated in approach. So a 'political agreement' means those things that can be concluded will be and those that cannot will be clearly identified for the 2010 round of negotiations.
The question now is what will the quality of the political agreement be? The only way such a document could be considered successful is if:
- developing countries commit to what are described as meaningful efforts to reduce emissions that are measurable, reportable and verifiable
- developed countries agree to significant finance sufficient to cover the cost of the developing country actions and
- developed countries agree to deeper emissions reductions than if the other points had not been achieved
Challengingly, each of these is a pre-requisite of the other, so its hard to see what has to come first.
Standing over this is the position of many developing countries that they will not sign up to any agreement that will allow average temperatures to rise above 1.5 degrees celsius (about 350 parts per million CO2e). For what are known as the small island states, that is not entirely unreasonable of course and it certainly places pressure on developed countries like Australia that are seeking to limit average temperature rises to 2 degrees celsius.
But overnight on Monday, Australian time, all this appeared to be subsumed within a debate about whether there should be one agreement or two?
Will there ultimately be a single agreement or 'two tracks'?
Currently there are two agreements. The Kyoto Protocol containing binding developed country commitments and the United Nations Framework Convention setting out means and mechanisms for addressing climate change. There is logic to a single agreement of course, but developing countries are concerned that under that scenario, developed countries could seek to remove some of the disproportionate burden of emissions reductions that lands on their shoulders under the principle of 'historical responsibility'.
Only 30% of global emissions are included under the Kyoto Protocol and the vast majority of the growth in emissions in future is not included under it. for that reasons, Japan, Russia and Canada are clear they will not agree to extend the Kyoto Protocol beyond its nominal expiry in 2012
The fallback - and a genuine possibility in our view - is that a single agreement could be proposed with the text of the Kyoto Protocol forming part of the base language and creating a minimum level of emissions reduction commitments. But even this is opposed by most environmental non-government organisations (ENGOs) and many developing countries. Overnight we witnessed a developing country walk out over exactly this issue, with major support from the ENGOs. The canny observer will note that the walk out lasted almost exactly two hours. Just long enough to make a point and not long enough for everyone else to have gone home.
All of this pressure is designed to up the ante for the high level session where the numbers - dollars and targets - will really start to be played.
Ultimately, that is what will split the developing countries from their supporters and stalkers in the ENGOs - the amount of money offered by developed countries to assist them with action on climate change mitigation and adaptation.
There are still huge gaps to be made up in finance, on targets and on the form of an agreement. A quality political document is possible, but it will be down to the high level session involving 120 heads of state to deliver an outcome. Some long and tense nights lie ahead then. And if you are keen, you can watch it all on UN television by clicking here. You can also collect all the detailed documents from this location.
Forestry and land use issues
For our subscribers and clients in forestry, timber, pulp and paper and other land use sectors, we provide the following updates:
'LULUCF' - Land use, land use change and forestry - a battle royal is raging over the rules and arrangements for land use and forestry. Developing countries - with the support of ENGOs - are concerned that the rules are being developed to give developed countries a free kick where they will not be liable for the sector's emisisons but will be able to claim offsets for the sequestration. If this sounds familiar, it is. Its the debate from the last couple of domestic political weeks about the exclusion of agriculture from the ETS but its allowance as an offset.
On LULUCF, developing countries want the existing rules which recognise emissions on bulk and ignore most sequestrations from the sector. However, of most concern is the emphasis on year by year accounting and an unrealistic baseline. The Australian proposal of reference levels that take into account age class structures and harvest plans for sustainably managed forests and therefore that smoothe inter-annual variations is therefore under significant pressure.
This concern has an added domestic heat in Australia with ENGOs getting solid media in Australia on Monday 14th December on LULUCF with an attack on the government over reference levels and baselines populating the debate. One comment from a seasoned Australian industry professional in this area was: "In sum, LULUCF has become a game of political hard-ball. Developed countries, including Australia came to Copenhagen ready to agree on rules for LULUCF but the likelihood of such an agreement is now very tenuous."
As LULUCF is tied into significant emissions reductions, expect any resolution on LULUCF to come late in the negotiations, possibly as part of a final settlement. As late as Monday night, the LULUCF negotiations were suspended and elevated from diplomats to the high level negotiations. This came as the French attacked Australia and others for what they described as the 'Australia clause' and the debate reportedly became personal between negotiators.
'REDD' - Reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries - progress has been substantial and a deal is likely at Copenhagen. Our contacts suggest that as anticipated, sustainable forest management, not just forest reserves and conservation areas will be included in a REDD deal. This is an important area of development because the cheapest forms of mitigation is likely to come from avoided deforestation. There are items outstanding but progress on them is expected in the next two days.
CarbonEdge subscribers should expect a further update on Thursday morning and we think, another on Saturday morning as the shape of any final agreement is known.
Want to know about a particular topic? Email Tim Woods at twoods@fitzpatrickwoods.com.au.
15th December, 2009
RECENT ARTICLES
New Clean Technology Program Offers Opportunities to Manufacturers (Dec 2011)
REC Market Vulnerable (Dec 2011)
REC me out of here - carbon neutral energy from Australian Forests (Dec 2011)
CarbonEdge Charts - Dec 2011 (Subscribers Only)
CarbonEdge Charts - Oct 2011 (Subscribers Only)