The United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (UN-NGLS) is an inter-agency programme of the United Nations mandated to promote and develop constructive relations between the United Nations and civil society organizations.
This event was convened on 25 January, 2010 by the United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (UN-NGLS), Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative and the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation. The aims were to increase understanding of the implications of the Copenhagen Accord, to highlight emerging opportunities, approaches and strategies for achieving greater success at COP 16 that begins in Mexico at the end of November this year, and to ensure that the issue of climate change is given sufficient attention in wider debates on development.
The event, moderated by Mrs. Mary Robinson, President of Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative, included H.E. Mr. Lumumba Stanislas Di-aping, Chief Negotiator of the G77 Countries; Ms. Meena Raman, Legal Advisor of the Third World Network; Mr. Ben Margolis, Campaigns Director of the Global Campaign for Climate Action; and Mr. Robert C. Orr, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Strategic Planning in the Office of the UN Secretary-General. Their opening remarks (summarized below) were followed by many government and civil society representatives speaking from the floor, including the Permanent or Deputy Permanent Representatives from the Missions of France, Denmark, Bolivia, India, the EU and Kenya, as well as Martin Khor from the South Center and Federica Bietta, Deputy Director of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations.
For more information on the meeting please see the Background Note.
Meeting Highlights
Mary Robinson in her opening remarks as Moderator noted that 2010 has become a critically important year to make faster progress on climate change, keeping up the momentum and building greater understanding, trust and collaboration. She noted that the framing for the meeting - Climate Justice - builds on the concepts of “equity” and “common but differentiated responsibilities” contained within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Climate Justice begins with the acknowledgement that because the world’s richest countries have contributed most to the problem, they have a greater obligation to take action and to do so more quickly. It requires analysis and action that builds on the differential impacts on specific groups, including women and indigenous peoples. Climate Justice reinforces the need for governments and others to act in an accountable and transparent manner that respects the human rights and dignity of all people. It reinforces the importance of identifying and giving attention to the perspectives and voices of those who are most vulnerable. And a climate justice approach underscores the importance of multilateralism and all nations being involved in the negotiating process and outcomes, giving a particularly strong voice to those countries who will suffer most.
H.E. Mr. Lumumba Stanislas Di-aping emphasized these elements in his remarks. One aspect is architectural, including the importance of creating a group of negotiators who accurately represent different constituencies and who can deliver on commitments. He asked the participants to consider whether the substantial elements in the Copenhagen Accord are acceptable. He urged taking special note of the risks to Africa. The commitments on the table now will cause a 4° temperature rise, and water stress for 75-250 million people by 2020. Under the current arrangement just 20% of atmospheric space for emissions will be allocated to 80% of the earth’s people. He urged greater commitment and faster movement on technology transfer, and finding solutions for climate financing.
Ms. Meena Raman reminded participants that the Copenhagen Accord was only one outcome of COP 15 in December 2009 and that there are important reports from two of the UNFCCC Working Groups – the Ad Hoc Working Group for Long-Term Cooperative Action (which takes forward the Bali Action Plan and addresses the “implementation deficit”), and the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol. She was concerned that there were interpretations around the time of COP 15 that the Kyoto Protocol is expiring, whereas it was only the first commitment period that was ending in 2012, with the second commitment period starting in 2013. She noted that the US, though not a signatory, would be expected to make “comparable efforts” to other developed (Annex 1) countries. She emphasized that a key weakness of the Copenhagen Accord is that there is no aggregate target for emissions reductions in the final text, that individual country pledges referred to in its Annexes will produce a race to the bottom, and that there is no mechanism for compliance.
Mr. Ben Margolis, Campaigns Director of the Global Campaign for Climate Action, reminded participants that the essence of climate justice is a focus on people. Whilst the presidency of the COP called for the three C’s in Copenhagen of Cooperation, Commitment and Consensus, he felt the world got “the three ‘un’s’ – unfair, unambitious and unsuccessful. He urged a renewed commitment to maintaining the negotiations at the UN FCCC level, involving all countries. He noted that the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) statement urged putting more energy into the UNFCC, increasing the number of scheduled meetings in 2010, and getting genuine commitments in particular on finance and technology transfer. He urged accountability for financing – in 1972 most rich countries promised .7% of their GDP for aid, but only about five have met this commitment. Finally, Ben wondered about the role of the public. GCCA has looked at climate change negotiations as a political process, but if emissions must peak by 2015 (according to science) can current political processes alone really get us there? He suggested what is needed is hope, new types of activism (like the 350 and 10/10 campaigns), and the private sector pro-actively reducing emissions – the political process is not enough.
Mr. Robert C. Orr, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Strategic Planning in the Office of the UN Secretary-General, began his remarks by acknowledging the ‘divergent understandings’ of the outcome of a ‘messy process’. However, he felt that this was natural given the high stakes and the unprecedented nature of the Copenhagen meeting. He asked that we step back, fairly assess what happened at Copenhagen, and then look forward. Mr. Orr highlighted three important “firsts” about Copenhagen: 1) there was a serious global discussion on the issue at hand and governments agreed on a goal; 2) all the major players made serious commitments within the context of the Copenhagen Accord and mitigation commitments were discussed at a the highest levels; and 3) there was a serious discussion on resources that comes close to the order of magnitude that may be needed. He noted that the US$ 100 billion commitment from major developed countries by 2020 is extremely important, as is the US$ 30 billion over the next three years, especially to the poorest and most vulnerable. He noted how important it is that the UNFCCC gain universal support since it is the only universal and legitimate forum for negotiation. It is important to rally around this process. Because the negotiating process in Copenhagen came very close to total failure, governments must return to the working groups with renewed spirits, a greater sense of purpose and new ideas. The sense of urgency in the UNFCCC process must be maintained, and he welcomed the initiative by the BASIC countries in their recent call for more meetings this year. He concluded that political commitment at the highest levels is very important going forward, and that we must find ways to effectively channel the political energy. Achieving success in the coming year will require the effort of all stakeholders – difficult, but do-able.
A frank and constructive discussion followed. Many speakers commented on the need to build greater trust in 2010 and there was a broad agreement that the year 2010 is critical in aggressively addressing the threat of climate change. A concrete recommendation was to have the Prime Minister of Denmark and the President of Mexico call for a meeting of the Bureau of the Conference of Parties of the UN FCCC and to organize 4-5 meetings during 2010 in which governments work together constructively to create the kind of deal that was hoped for in Copenhagen. Many speakers looked to governments to provide stronger leadership in the COP 16 process. Mary Robinson concluded that this meeting dispelled the sense of disarray after the Copenhagen meeting, and pointed to the importance of marshalling strong leadership and taking on board principles of equity and justice on the road to Mexico.
Archive of this section