Brussels, 11/12/2015 (Agence Europe) - Two long nights of discussions and no agreement in sight at the international climate conference. Laurent Fabius, who is chairing the summit acknowledged on Friday 11 December that, on Saturday afternoon, it would be “time to conclude” an “ambitious, fair and sustainable” global climate agreement, based on a new draft that will be presented, at best, on “Saturday morning at 9 o'clock”.
The sticking points have been how to deliver and how to finance the ultimate goal of the agreement. If relations have become more tense, it is because each country has retreated behind its red lines. But that is only to be expected at this stage in the negotiations. “The text is shorter and more courageous but we're not there yet. The EU and our allies are pushing for a more ambitious agreement”, assured Climate Action and Energy Commissioner Miguel Aria Canete (see EUROPE 11450).
“While anything is possible, across the world, COP 21 has given great hope. It's a promise that we do not have the right to disappoint”, stated Nicolas Hulot, special envoy of French President François Hollande. He spoke of the “unprecedented responsibility on heads of state”. He added: “Rather than oppose our respective responsibilities, we must bring them together. Rather than build walls and draw red lines as if we had the whole of eternity in front of us, each of us must build bridges. The future is there. Solidarity cannot be negotiated - it has to be built”.
Negotiators are “24 hours behind schedule but 24 hours is neither here nor there when you've been working for more than four years”, said Matthieu Orphelin of the Nicolas Hulot Foundation, “because most countries want an ambitious text”.
The ambition of the agreement. The text states that the goal is to keep the average increase in global temperature “well below 2 degrees” by the end of the century while pursuing efforts to limit the rise to 1.5 degrees, and that is potential progress. However, the long-term goal is weak as it contains no figure for the reduction of greenhouse gases by 2015, content to speak of a “peak” in emissions at an undetermined date and “climate neutrality” by the end of the century. This is far from the 50% reduction at least by 2050 that the EU argued for, and decarbonisation or 100% renewable energy, as NGOs and civil society had called for by the same date.
The first collective progress report has been pushed back until 2019 (rather than 2018-2019 in the previous version, a target backed by the EU). The rendezvous clause provides for maintaining or increasing commitments every five years but still there is no agreement on the first review date, still planned for around 2025. The EU, the United States and the members of the “High ambition coalition” want that date to be brought forward.
Post-2020 financing. It has now been agreed that the $100 billion promised by the developed countries to the developing countries by 2020 will be a base amount to be reviewed upwards, much to the chagrin of China. Helen Szoke of Oxfam International said: “In a big win for developing and vulnerable countries, the draft has affirmed the need to set quantified funding goals for both climate change mitigation and adaptation”. However, she regretted that no firm target for funds meant to help vulnerable people adapt to climate change has been identified.
The least developed countries (LDCs) and vulnerable small island states (AOSIS) are wary. “If the rich countries failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, how can we believe their post-2020 commitments?” wondered an AOSIS representative, calling for “proof of the feasibility” of the promised access to a climate insurance. “The issue of mobilisation and improvement of resources has not been resolved. The text says that the developed countries 'should' take the lead. The wording is very weak”, Golam Rabbani of the NGO Bangladesh Center for Advanced Studies told EUROPE.
The issue of loss and damages is now the subject of a separate article from adaptation, as sought by the African countries, the most vulnerable countries, backed by the EU. “It is crucial that the most vulnerable countries, and those which already suffer from climate change, are entitled to support from the main polluters - all of them. But this should be done in a spirit of solidarity, and not of vindictiveness”, stated Gilles Pargneaux (S&D, France), European Parliament rapporteur for COP 21 (see EUROPE 11411). In the view of Parliament, differentiation between developed and developing countries is no longer useful. “To consider China as a developing country” that should receive aid “makes no sense”, argued Ian Duncan (ECR, UK).
Important elements have been removed from the text. Under pressure from Saudi Arabia and Iraq, recognition of the interest of the price of coal in the fight against climate change has been removed. Human rights have also been dropped (from Article 2), just as the reference to gender equality and just transition to a clean economy had earlier gone the way of all flesh.
Mention of inclusion of international maritime transport and international civil aviation in mitigation efforts (Article 3) has also been removed, following pressure from Singapore and the United States, even though the previous draft merely called on the IMO and ICAO to speed up their efforts. This is unacceptable to the EU and the European Parliament. European ship owners, ECSI, spoke out on Thursday, calling on the IMO to act. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)