REVIEW OF THE CANCUN CLIMATE SUMMIT

In early December, officials and ministers representing 194 different countries met in Cancún, Mexico for the 16th UN Climate Change Conference. In a series of meetings known as the Conference of the Parties (COP), delegates aimed to discuss international efforts to tackle dangerous climate change (COP16) which would build upon the previous agreements, most recently that of the talks held in Copenhagen (COP15) in 2009.

With the contentious Kyoto Protocol (which governed the emissions of six major greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane by industrialised countries, but has been riddled with problems from the outset) set to expire in 2012, the Copenhagen summit sought to secure a workable replacement. However the leakage of a draft political declaration document aimed at just a select group of rich countries (known as the ‘Danish text’) prior to the meetings understandably angered those countries not on the list, and undermined the talks and any atmosphere of trust before the summit had even begun. Many also felt that the talks were rushed, with delegates from developing countries feeling that no one was prepared to listen to their concerns.

The talks disintegrated into chaos but a last minute initiative brokered by the United States, India, Brazil, South Africa and China resulted in a flimsy document known as the Copenhagen Accord. Although this highlights the political sentiment to emissions reductions, it is neither legally binding nor enforceable and contains no firm commitments on CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Another concern was the widening divide between developed and developing countries created at Copenhagen, which seems particularly unjust considering that most of the major emitters are the richer industrialised nations whilst the poorer developing nations are those most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, both physically and economically.

Thus with the expiration deadline of Kyoto looming in 2012, the pressure was on for this year’s Cancún summit to deliver. However from the outset, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Christiana Figueres stated that they did not expect a binding agreement to be produced over the course of the two-week long meeting. Press coverage of the event has also been decidedly more low-key than Copenhagen, perhaps lacking the political clout of the latter with no Heads of State in attendance, but rather with the talks being held at the ministerial level.

Despite this background, it was however widely hoped that the meeting would at least set the groundwork for transforming the Copenhagen Accord into a legally-binding functional agreement, with particular focus on financial aid and the transfer of sustainable technologies and infrastructure to developing countries. Although during Copenhagen, developed countries pledged $30bn in aid to developing countries, rising to $100bn by 2020, there were widespread concerns over how this aid would be co-ordinated and whether this would be financed through the creation of a newly dedicated stream of funding, or via the re-direction of existing aid. One of the major causes for the failure of the Copenhagen Summit was that developing countries felt that their concerns were not being listened to and adequately addressed, with the talks rather focussing on the big personalities from industrialised nations.

From the outset, the talks were in very real danger of collapsing after a deadlock was reached, with Japan refusing to sign up to the second commitment phase of Kyoto post-2012 without similar commitments from the emerging economies of China and India. In addition, with the Kyoto Protocol being the only legally-binding agreement committing developed countries to emissions cuts, many developing countries threatened to leave the talks unless a pledge was made for a second commitment phase of Kyoto, rather than reverting to the more weakly (non-legally) binding targets set out under the Copenhagen Accord. Concerns were also high over whether the disputes over the extension of Kyoto would threaten to sabotage any signing of a deal on the protection of forests, which many had regarded would be a critical outcome of the summit. Further, another key issue was the United States being accused of effectively acting to block any deal on the creation of a Green Climate Fund. The United States insisted that all details were discussed and finalised during the summit, an event which many saw as unlikely to occur, rather than being deferred to later meetings. With the long over-due final ratification of Kyoto and the shambles that occurred at Copenhagen, the collapse of the talks at Cancún could sound the death knell for international talks to avert dangerous climate change.

A critical turning point was however reached when, after lengthy and tense negotiations, a compromise was realised on the future of the Kyoto Protocol. The deferment of the ultimate decision on the second commitment phase until the 2011 summit in Durban, South Africa, was acceptable to both developing and developed countries. There was a general recognition that there are still major challenges ahead particularly regarding Kyoto’s successor post-2012, with the acceptance of the need to limit mean warming to 2oC and that current emissions commitments are on track to overshoot this at present.
On the final day of the summit, a modest deal was struck between parties agreeing to a package of measures. These included the official recognition of the commitment of all nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the reaffirmation of aid figures pledged at Copenhagen ($30 billion distributed to poorer nations by 2012 and $100 billion to be made available by 2020) and the establishment of the Green Climate Fund to feature equal representation by both developed and developing countries whose aim will be to distribute the financial aid. A key positive outcome of the summit was the progress made on concrete agreements to enhance action to curb emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, with financial compensation being provided for protection and conservation of their forests.

Despite failing to secure any crucial decisions on the future of Kyoto or holding any real discussions about the level of global emissions cuts necessary to keep the projected temperature rise within safe levels, the talks have widely been hailed as a diplomatic triumph with Cancún being the scene for some of the first meaningful co-operative efforts and open discussions between and amongst both developed and developing countries. With Copenhagen commonly regarded as derailing international efforts to tackle climate change, mostly as a result of developing countries (arguably most at risk from adverse climate change) frustrated that their concerns were not being adequately addressed by developed countries, discussions now appear to be back on track with the UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres stating that “the beacon of hope has been reignited and faith in the multilateral climate change process to deliver results has been restored”. Nicholas Stern, author of the Stern Review which looked at the economic impacts of climate change agreed, saying that despite only modest agreements being struck on paper, the real achievement of the summit was the international co-operation towards a common goal and the active diplomatic discussions which sought common ground between parties. He added that there was “now a very powerful momentum towards a low-carbon economy”. Furthermore, many nations have showed promising signs of positive independent action outside of any UN multilateral processes, with many countries setting their own ambitious emissions targets and increasingly switching to low-carbon technologies and economies. China has pledged to reduce the intensity of its carbon-economy by 40-45 per cent by 2020 and has become the world’s largest producers of solar panels and wind turbines. Meanwhile, Brazil announced that it was very close to eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation, which is one of its biggest sources of emissions and Indonesia, the world’s third largest emitter of greenhouse gases after China and the United States (due to extensive deforestation) has pledged to change their forests from net carbon sources to net sinks in the coming years.

With the focus now post-Cancún but turned towards the COP17 summit in Durban, South Africa in December next year, the world remains hopeful that the spirit of international co-operation and unity between developed and developing nations can carry forward into 2011. With conclusive recognition that the mean temperature increase must be limited to 2oC in order to avoid the worst of adverse climate change, then the longer firm decisions on the level of emissions cuts are delayed, the more severe these cuts will eventually have to be. There must be a named critical cut-off date of 2020 by which to make a decision before irreparable damage is caused. Thus, with the Kyoto Protocol due to expire at the end of 2012, the pressure is on for conclusive action over its future to be decided upon at the upcoming COP17 meeting next year. In addition, firm decisions must be made on legally-binding emissions targets to keep us on track for a limit of 2oC mean warming, agreement on the sources of financial aid promised under the Green Climate Fund and for formalising the guidelines for basis of how these funds will be distributed. Following Cancún, the Indian environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, suggested that nations were already making plans for next year’s summit hoping that “countries can build on this positive energy as they continue to work on the huge task of a fair and effective international response to climate change going into South Africa” next December 2011. We wait for the outcome with bated breath.

North-west hosepipe ban-2010

Archie McCluskey

 Following the driest start to a year since 1964, the government was forced to impose a hosepipe ban for all of Cumbria and most of the north-west of England, starting on the 9th of July and ending on the 19th of August, due to the ‘bubble’ of high pressure that engulfed the north of England for several months causing a drought. This restricted 7 million people from using their hosepipes or garden sprinklers in their privately owned gardens until sufficient rainfall had made up for the fall in reservoir levels supplying their particular area. This meant that the Leeds-Liverpool Canal also had to be banned from use, as the water supply was solely from the Pennines where the drought hit the hardest. No rain was spared in the east of Britain however, as they had frequent showers all through this period.

     The national average of rainfall for 2010 had been the lowest for some years, and this was concerning not only the main UK water companies, but the Met office also, who said that North-west England, who would normally have an average of 530mm of rain from January to June, had just 299mm, the driest since 1929. After the floods in Cockermouth in the north of the Lake District on the 19th-20th November last year, it was ironic that the drought would affect this same area less than a year later, where the same rivers that burst their banks in 2009 could dry up considerably at the start of 2010.