Climate Law & Policy Project
Protecting the human right to a safe climate.
Protecting the human right to a safe climate.
CLPP attorneys report on highlights from COP 14 in Poznan, Poland, Dec. 1-13.
Although the negotiators may have made minimal progress in Poznan, many prominent scientists, policymakers and delegates changed the climate policy discourse by expressing their support for ambitious emission reduction targets that will avoid dangerous climate impacts and therefore protect vulnerable communities. Recent scientific studies indicate that climate change is happening much faster than previously anticipated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the broader scientific community, causing some in the international climate community to forcefully assert that 2 degrees C is not a safe and equitable target.
At the opening plenary of the Poznan climate negotiations on December 1, 2008, Dr. R. K. Pachauri, IPCC Chair, warned delegates that the impacts of climate change will soon exceed our ability to adapt to them. In his remarks, Dr. Pachauri outlined findings of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report and made the sobering statement that “[i]f global mean temperature increase is to be stabilized between 2.0-2.4°C, then CO2 emissions must peak by 2015.” He further stated that “even the trajectory of stabilisation described above would leave some serious problems in the nature of impacts of climate change. We would need to consider whether the effort to limit increase in global mean temperature to about 2 degrees C would be adequate...” In fact, Dr. Pachauri acknowledged that even a 1.1 degree C temperature rise would result in dangerous climate impacts. (Note: Dr. Pachauri also mentioned that the 2 degrees Celsius target is an arbitrary number established by the European Union and not by the scientific community.)
Similarly, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), a coalition of small island and low-lying coastal countries, announced its ambitious position that the increase in global temperature must be stabilized below 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. In addition, AOSIS demanded that global emissions peak by 2015 and be reduced by more than 85% by 2050 from 1990 levels; AOSIS also called for stabilization of atmospheric CO2 at or below 350 ppm. During the high level meeting in Poznan, Ambassador Ronny Jumeau of the Seychelles reiterated his country’s support for this position and the need for steeper targets: “As AOSIS negotiators have repeatedly said these past weeks, to ask Small Island Developing States to sign on to a two-degree threshold is to ask us to sign a suicide note. To impose it on us would condemn us to death.” Another negotiating bloc formed by the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) also announced its support for AOSIS’ position during the negotiations.
Action targets (ATs) are one possible policy mechanism that may promote developing country participation in the post-2012 agreement. Focusing squarely on emissions reductions, ATs provide greater certainty to developing countries about what level of emission-reducing effort will be required on their parts.
CLPP distributed a white paper at the UN climate negotiations in Poznan that provided an overview of the AT concept and encouraged consideration of this mechanism for developing country involvement. CLPP sought feedback on the idea from Party delegates from Africa, Asia and Europe as well as from NGO representatives, academics, and CDM experts.
Since the Parties generally made little progress and continued to struggle to identify a shared vision for long-term cooperation at the Poznan negotiations, no decisions have yet been made regarding specific mechanisms for developing country emissions reductions. As negotiations move forward in 2009, CLPP will continue to seek feedback on and promote consideration of action targets.
While in Poznan, the CLPP delegation worked in collaboration with Many Strong Voices (MSV), a coalition of representatives from Arctic indigenous and low-lying island communities that are experiencing firsthand the devastating impacts of climate change. MSV members find that their interests are not being heard or represented within the formal negotiations, but they recognize the power of their collective voices.
CLPP participated in daily MSV strategy meetings, offering relevant news, updates, and advice as MSV members planned their efforts at COP 14. In addition, CLPP offered input in smaller strategy sessions exploring further collaborative efforts between Arctic communities and small island developing states (SIDS).
CLPP also provided strategic and communications support to MSV members for their efforts to establish a UN Experts Working Group for Indigenous Peoples. The Working Group would advise the Parties to the UNFCCC on the impacts climate change is having on vulnerable indigenous communities and ensure that indigenous rights and perspectives are incorporated into the post-2012 framework. Chief Bill Erasmus of the Arctic Athabaskan Council (AAC) and other MSV members within the Indigenous Peoples Caucus argued that country delegations do not adequately represent the interests of indigenous communities and that indigenous peoples must have their own voice within the formal negotiations.
Throughout the negotiations, CLPP attended and participated in several MSV-related side events, including:
CLPP closely followed the negotiations on reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD). The language in the original draft text included recognition of the rights and interests of indigenous peoples and local communities. However, during the negotiations, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand struck this language from the text. (According to US negotiators, the US and other countries that have not signed on to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples do not recognize the collective rights of indigenous peoples -- as compared to the rights of individuals -- and therefore refuse to consider such language.) In protest, the Indigenous Peoples Caucus held an impromptu press conference and issued a press release denouncing the countries that played a significant role in cutting the indigenous rights language.
CLPP attorneys also contributed to an article in the Climate Action Network’s ECO newsletter highlighting the important (and overlooked) connection between climate change and human rights.