A growing focus on national and international security challenges posed by climate change could detract attention from the root causes of the problem, the needs of the most vulnerable people and the search for appropriate solutions.

Corinne Schoch, a researcher at the International Institute for Environment and Development explains why in an opinion paper published today (6 October), as ongoing UN climate-change negotiations in Panama reach their mid-point.

Schoch says a growing focus on security could lead to top-down responses to climate change that marginalise the most vulnerable people and sideline the existing institutions that are best suited to meeting these people’s needs.

Security institutions – from the UN Security Council to national militaries – are increasingly looking at the potential for climate change to spark conflict. Schoch’s paper examines why this is happening and what the implications of this trend could be.

“The focus on climate change and conflict implies an overly simple chain of cause and effect,” says Schoch. “The potential link between climate change and conflict may be real but the truth is that we have insufficient evidence to draw strong conclusions and there is a danger in extrapolating from the local to the global.”

“This could create top-down responses that focus on security in a very limited sense of the word and ignore both the causes of climate change and the best ways to limit its impacts on vulnerable communities.”

The post IIED says Security focus on climate change could blur real issues first appeared on Uganda Multimedia News & Information.

United Nations climate negotiations will resume in Bonn, Germany, on 6 June 2011. This session follows the slow progress made at earlier talks in Bangkok in April, and are essential for building momentum toward the Durban climate conference in November.

The Bangkok talks were focused on setting the agenda for the negotiations for the rest of the year and were setback by divisions between countries over the scope of international climate talks. In Bangkok some rich developed countries insisted on limiting the negotiations to implementing the narrow range of issues agreed at Cancun; in contrast most countries supported continuing under an agreed workplan from 2007 (the Bali Action Plan).[1]

The Bonn talks are to be based on the broad agenda advocated by most countries in Bangkok, but the clash in the ‘paradigm’ for the negotiations will underline further disagreements in Bonn.  These fault-lines include:

1. Setting binding emissions reduction targets through the Kyoto Protocol

2. Insufficient emissions reduction targets currently on the table

3. The Green Climate Fund

For further information, interviews, briefings or quotes on these topics or others from a range of civil society representatives please contact: alex.rafalowicz@gmail.com (Bonn local number available shortly).

A copy of this note for download can be found here

1. Setting new binding emission reduction targets in 2011?

The Kyoto Protocol represents the current model of international climate law – it requires developed countries to set binding emission reduction targets and to meet them over a 5 year period. The first five-year period ends in 2012 and time is running out to agree on targets for the next ‘commitment period’ (2012-2017) in accordance with the mandated negotiations, which have been running since 2005.

Developing countries, particularly the Africa Group, have made clear that a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol is essential, as it provides a paradigm of legally binding emission reduction targets. Some developed countries, including Russia and Japan, have indicated they will walk away from their international legal commitment to submit targets for the second commitment period. The United States is similarly opposed to binding emissions reduction targets. Instead of negotiating science-based targets reflecting their fair share of the global effort, they are now proposing a “pledge-based” system in which each country does whatever it determines domestically.

Bonn represents a pivotal moment for the future of the Kyoto Protocol as any targets under the protocol must be submitted six months before the annual UN climate meeting in December. This six month deadline falls on the 9^th of June. Unlike other decisions at the UN climate talks, consensus is not required to adopt new targets or amendments to the Protocol, instead a 75% vote is needed.[2] This vote would be possible if, for example, all developing countries and the European Union voted in favour of new targets

2. Will those new targets be enough?

The latest science shows that negotiators at Bonn will be out of touch with what the latest science clearly requires if the world is to avert dangerous climate change. The current pledges risk warming of 2.5 to 5 degrees according to the United Nations Environment Programme. The problems with developed countries proposed targets are manifold: they are too low to meet what the science requires but they are also accompanied by ‘creative accounting’ proposals which result in emissions reductions only on paper. Furthermore the extensive use of offsets via carbon markets will see rich countries shift the burden for reducing emissions to developing countries – while doing almost nothing at home.

Analysis revealed in Bangkok showed that when emission reductions were converted into gross amounts – rather than percentages – it was clear that developing countries’ pledges for emission reductions were even higher than those from developed countries (3.6 Gigatonnes to occur in developing countries with only 1.9 Gigatonnes to occur in developed countries).[3] Together, these pledges fell well short of the 14+ Gigatonnes the UN says is necessary to be on path to remain below 2 or 1.5 degrees C.

In addition, the emissions reduction targets proposed by developed countries are ridden with loopholes. The rules currently being considered do not take into account emissions from shipping and aviation, overestimate emissions reductions by forests in developed countries and allow the carry-over of unused pollution permits and offset credits. This means that the total emission of developed countries could actually increase even if their ‘official’ targets say they are making reductions[4].

The debate over these rules, how they shift the burden of reducing emissions to developing countries and whether they are in line with the science will be of central importance in Bonn – particularly as the agenda sets particular time for addressing this issue.[5]

3. Creating a ‘Green Climate Fund’

In Cancun one of the few areas of agreement was the establishment of a ‘Green Climate Fund’ (GCF) to oversee the collection and disbursement of ‘climate finance.’ Currently the details of the GCF are being negotiated by a ‘Transitional Committee’ (TC) which has already met in Mexico in April and again in Bonn from May 30.

Flashpoint issues in the negotiations of the GCF have already included the role of the World Bank as its trustee, given concerns regarding its potential conflicts of interest due to its role in financing fossil-fuel based projects, and its practice of mixing roles as a banker, financial advisor and project implementer (known as the “Arthur Anderson syndrome” following the financial crisis). This conflict may be compounded by proposals relating to secondments and staffing of the new fund, which draw heavily on the World Bank as a source.

Similarly, many observers are concerned that the process of the GCF is off-track. It is currently heavily focused on technicalities and structure – without having agreed to what the priorities of the fund should be or the actual scale of public funding. In Cancun, countries agreed to a “goal” to “mobilize” $100 billion by 2020 from “a wide variety of sources”. However, developed countries are yet to commit to any specific level of public funding.

A further critical question here is what a “balanced” allocation of finance between adaptation and mitigation really means.[6] It is to be expected at Bonn that developing countries, who are the most vulnerable to climate impacts, will push the GCF to identify the needs and priorities of recipients before designing structures to best meet those needs.

Finally there is concern that the GCF is too focused on ‘private finance’ options (through loan guarantees, publicly-provided insurance, or other risk sharing instruments) and thus risks putting too much power into the hands of profit-driven interests. Market failures and distortions by private interests are a significant structural cause of the climate crisis and many countries fear a continued focus on the ‘private market’ could have the effect of financing projects that are ineffective at confronting climate change but are very effective at transferring public monies into private coffers. These countries and observers will be pushing for the GCF to be primarily funded through public sources (including innovative mechanisms such as Special Drawing Rights and the ‘Robin Hood Tax’).

—-

Note to editors: please contact alex.rafalowicz@gmail.com for further information or for attribution of material in this note.

The post Bonn Climate Change Negotiations resume first appeared on Uganda Multimedia News & Information.

Known as the Cancún agreements, nations after a two week meeting agreed a package of decisions to help countries advance towards a low-emissions future, delivering what the world body’s top officials have hailed as a victory in the battle against one of today’s biggest challenges.

UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon

Ki-mmon in a statement today said governments came together in common cause, for the common good, and agreed on a way forward to meet the defining challenge of our time- climate change

The decisions reached include formalizing mitigation pledges and ensuring increased accountability for them, as well as taking concrete action to protect the world’s forests, which account for nearly one-fifth of global carbon emissions.

Delegates meeting at the 16th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) also agreed to ensure no gap between the first and second commitment periods of the Kyoto Protocol, an addition to the Convention that contains legally binding measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and whose first commitment period is due to expire in 2012.

Agreement was also reached on establishing a fund for long-term climate financing to support developing countries, and bolstering technology cooperation and enhancing vulnerable populations’ ability to adapt to the changing climate.

“The outcomes in Cancun have given us important tools. Now we must use them, and strengthen our efforts in line with the scientific imperative for action,” Ban Ki-moon says.

The next Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC is scheduled to be held in South Africa from 28 November to 9 December 2011.

The post Ban Ki-Moon hails Cancún agreements on Climate Change first appeared on Uganda Multimedia News & Information.