ClimateDebate

En NGO deltagers tanker om COP15 og øvrige klimaarrangementer.

Jeg var NGO deltager som titusinder af andre som repræsentant for FN forbundet.

Det betød adgang til Bella Centret og dermed adgang til møder, samtaler over en kop kaffe med delegater og andre NGO folk, kunne følge plenarforsamlingen via store lærreder, og endelig deltagelse i mange andre arrangementer udenfor BC, f.eks. i DGI byen og endelig deltagelse i den store folkedemonstration 12 december.

Store forventninger.
Det der dominerede folks tanker de første par dage – både officielle og NGO deltagere og medierne – var at dette var tidspunktet hvor noget nyt globalt og forpligtende på klimaområdet skulle fødes. Dette fantastiske øjeblik skulle gribes. Man talte om tiden nu som et ”momentum” , der skulle fastholdes. Stemningen var at vi alle var en del af noget historisk. Meget store forventninger. Se talerne de første dage.

Allerede et par dage inde i konferencen, hvor ”det danske papir”, der ikke lægger op til noget bindende og sås som vestlig tankegang, og som det danske formandskab senere kraftigt benægtede betydningen af, starter en mistillid fra u – landene. De er bange for at blive snydt igen, som det er sket så ofte.

Den ny verdensorden manifesterer sig
Kina, Brasilien, Indien og Sydafrika koordinerer mellem sig selv og med u-landsgruppen – 77-landegruppen der består af 133 lande – disse alliancer er på trods af indre uoverensstemmelser ikke desto mindre afgørende. De 4 ”emerging economies” (Kina, Brasilien, Indien og Sydafrika) har store og stærke delegationer. Den brasilianske delegation bestod af 695 delegater. Men mange i u-landsdelegationerne føler ikke, der bliver taget nok hensyn til dem fra vestlige lande, og især fra det danske formandskab.
U-landene, der har studeret hvem der bliver de stærke i fremtiden, føler sig empowered, men så er der lige det danske formandskab, der kommer i vejen.

Forecast frem til 2050 for ”the emerging economies” i Asien og Latinamerika ser sådan ud. Og den kender u-landene.

Hvis man ser på en af de bedste prognoser fra Goldman Sachs og ser på BNI (bruttonationalindkomst) får man flg. billede af verdens 8 stærkeste økonomier i 2008 og 2050.

Rækkefølge
2008
Land. 2008 BNI 2008.
I mill. US $. Rækkefølge
2050 Land 2050 BNI 2050.
I mill. US$
1 USA 14.264.600 1 Kina 70.710.000
2 Japan 4.923.761 2 USA 38.520.000
3 Kina 4.401.614 3 Indien 38.227.000
4 Tyskland 3.667.513 4 Brasilien 11.366.000
5 Frankrig 2.865.737 5 Mexico 9.343.000
6 UK 2.674.085 6 Rusland 8.564.000
7 Italien 2.313.893 7 Indonesien 7.010.000
8 Rusland 1.676.586 8 Japan 6.675.000
Kilde: Goldman Sachs. Global Economics Paper no 153. 28 marts.2008.

Løkke fra Græsted – Gilleleje kommune i international politik. Det danske formandskab.

Det danske formandskab skulle have inddraget de 4 lande og u-landene massivt fra begyndelsen i stedet for at tro at Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, og til sidst Obama bare kunne ordne det hele. Det blev sagt til dansk TV fra formandskabet på et tidligt tidspunkt, at man håbede at Sarkozy kunne tale med (kontrollere) den francofone verden, Brown tage sig af Commonwealth landene og Obama af resten. Denne næsten neo-koloniale opfattelse af hvordan u-landene kan kontrolleres, fungerer ikke i dag.
Det var direkte medinddragelse af den reelt eksisterende verden fra dag 1, der burde have været udgangspunktet. Men det gjorde det danske formandskab ikke. Det kom til at koste dyrt.
I begyndelsen af den anden uge bebudede Løkke et dansk kompromispapir. Og det blev lovet over 3 dage, men til sidst annonceret at det ikke ville blive offentliggjort.
U-landene og de 4 store lande i den tredje verden ville ikke have det. De ville have større medindflydelse. Og DK stod pludselig uden strategi.
Lars Løkke virkede som om u-landene irriterede ham. Man kunne se det på hans kropssprog og hans bemærkninger: ”procedure, procedure, procedure” sagde han engang. Og det kan man godt sige i Græsted-Gilleleje kommune og i Frederiksborg Amtsråd, men det er meget uklogt i en global FN – plenarforsamling.
Og det u-landene i virkeligheden prøvede (via procedurespørgsmål) var at få Kyotoprotokollen tilbage på banen, hvilket var i deres interesse.
Det er naturligvis korrekt at sige, at det ikke var Lars Løkkes skyld at konferencen kuldsejlede, men han skabte ofte dårlige stemninger og dyrebar tid tabtes på papirer, hvor der ikke var konsulteret nok med den tredje verden.

Connie Hedegaard var derimod dygtig, åben og vidende om hvad hun skulle gøre. Men hun var en del af den danske strategi.

Klimapoliti og klimafængsel til ”klimalømler”.

Lømmelpakken der vedtoges kort tid før klimakonferencen var ikke det rette svar på evt. uroligheder. De 968 der blev tilbageholdt og ført til ”klimafængslet” på den store demonstrationsdag d.12.12, og hvoraf langt de fleste var almindelige danske og udenlandske borgere og unge der ikke havde kastet med sten, var en skændsel i dansk retshistorie. Det korte af det lange er jo, at de tilbageholdte blev frihedsberøvet (reelt anholdt) og sat i fængsel i 6 eller 12 timer uden at komme for en dommer. Frihedsberøvelse/indsættelse i fængsel og det at blive fremsat for en dommer hører altså sammen i et retssamfund.
Lømmelpakken kan også bruges til 1 maj demonstrationer; til festivaller; og lign. Husk det!!

Princippet om at kun de der gør noget strafbart skal anholdes må det danske samfund ikke opgive. Hvis politiet får lov til (præventivt dvs før nogen har gjort noget strafbart) at anholde de der har sort tøj på eller er klædt på en bestemt måde, og som politiet tror måske(!?) vil gøre noget ulovligt, så er vi på vej mod politistaten.
80 % af de 968 der blev anholdt og sat i klimafængslet d. 12.12, var udlændinge ifølge politiet. De har ikke noget godt indtryk af Danmark. Ikke i noget andet demokratisk vesteuropæisk land har denne form for præventiv jura og deraf følgende politiindgriben mod lovlige demonstrationer i så massiv form været benyttet.

FNs mangel på organisationstalent i Bella Centret.
Det var også en skændsel at FN, som jo var ansvarlig for BC, accepterede næsten 3 gange så mange deltagere af alle slags i forhold til kapaciteten i BC. Det var ikke ansvarligt. Konsekvensen blev at deltagere i flere dage måtte, især mellem 9-15, stå mellem 4-8 timer i lange køer, ofte i minusgrader.
I flere dage vendte jeg selv om og tog ind til DGI byen, hvor der var mange udmærkede arrangementer åben for alle og med en god og åben atmosfære, og meget velorganiseret. Så ros til arrangørerne bag aktiviteterne i DGI byen.

Et magert resultat: En hensigtserklæring.
I forhold til det der var forventet var resultatet magert: en hensigtserklæring –”the Copenhagen Accord” – her:
http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/application/pdf/cop15_cph_auv.pdf

Order ”accord” betyder overensstemmelse, overens om. Der er meget langt fra ord som aftale, protokol.
Man siger også i begyndelsen at deltagerne ”takes note of”, der jo betyder: tager til efterretning. Det er meget langt fra at beslutte (adopt) noget.

På godt dansk betyder det: De lande der hele tiden har haft til hensigt at gøre noget godt, de gør noget godt, også efter COP15. De lande der ikke har lyst til at gøre noget, de gør ikke noget.

Hvis man kan mobilisere optimisme over dette, er det selvfølgeligt fint, men det er milelangt fra det alle ønskede og håbede.

Der er naturligvis fine og rigtige ord i erklæringen og nogle få konkrete mål: den globale temperatur under 2 grader; emission targets for 2020 for hvert land skal meddeles til FN; 30 mia. dollars 2010-12; 100 mia. dollars fra 2020 pr. år. Men der står ikke noget om hvordan pengene skal administreres, og hvor meget hvert land skal betale – så der er god plads til uenighed om dette også.

Positive aspekter
 Bortset fra adgangsforholdene var Bella Centret struktureret ret åbent, således at delegater og NGO folket kunne mødes frit og åbent, hvilket også skete. Mange NGOs blev indrulleret i u-landenes og små landes delegationer – så der kom NGO aftryk på de officielle forhandlinger. Møderne mellem de mange nationers mennesker var godt.
 Den store demonstration med op mod 100.000 mennesker var en stærk folkelig manifestation.
 At der trods alt kom et figenblad, en erklæring, ud til sidst i forhold til en situation, hvor intet blev vedtaget og alle tog hjem i total frustration. I det mindste er der enighed nu om at mødes i Bonn i juni og senere i Mexico city i slutningen af året. Processen fortsætter.
 Læring. Man lærer også af sine fejltagelser. Der må nu komme en stigende erkendelse af hvordan den ny verdensorden ser ud, og hvordan samarbejde skal ske i disse nye internationale omgivelser. U-landene kan blive sorteper i internationale forhandlinger, hvis den vestlige verden og de nye stærke lande (Kina, Indien, Brasilien, osv) går sammen og kører verden. Som det sker i vidt omfang i G-20; ved COP15 var det 26 lande (der skrev erklæringen) bestående af vestlige lande og de nye stærke u-lande + nogle få ulande – resten af u-lands verdenen var kørt ud på et sidespor – og det blev nogle lande i Afrika og Latinamerika rasende over, andre ulande resignerede og accepterede smulerne fra de riges bord.

FN har den fordel at alle lande er med og har en stemme, men med så mange lande – over 190 er det svært at tage beslutninger – derfor trænger FN til reform, således at FN bedre ligner den verden der er; og at man finder beslutningsformer, der både er mere effektive og også retfærdige over for små og svage lande, så de også får indflydelse.

Jørn Boye Nielsen

Hvem er jeg:
Medlem af bestyrelsen for FN forbundet;
Medlem af bestyrelsen for AWE (Association for World Education)
Medlem af bestyrelsen for tænketanken RIKO (www.riko.nu)
Arbejder på et udredningsprojekt om: Den ny multipolære verdensorden. Har i år (maj-juni) besøgt Brasilien og lavet interviews og undersøgelser der; har besøgt Rusland (i november i år), Moskva og St. Petersborg, hvor der er foretaget interviews med tænketanke og forskere og andre.
I 2010 besøger jeg Kina for at studere Kinas udenrigspolitik og opfattelse af verden.
Lærer ved Den Internationale Højskole 1980-2008 – underviste i International politik, politisk filosofi, konfliktløsning.
Cand scient.pol. fra Århus Universitet 1977.

As we enter the final day of negotiations at COP15, it seems like we are only waiting for China and USA to enter the negotiations with substantial promises. They are the major emitters of greenhouse gasses globally and without them in a climate deal, there will be no real deal – it will be impossible to ensure that temperatures will not rise above 2 degree Celsius (and far from the 1,5 degree Celsius which is necessary for the environment according to the President of the Maldives).  

But while we are waiting for China and the USA, why does the EU not take action and commit to 30 % reduction – why not stop the “we will, if you will” rhetoric and show real leadership? Although “it is politics”, the EU can not leave the negotiations without committing to a 30% reduction – they have said that they can do it, and it would be hypocritical if they do not commit to it.

The President of the Maldives put it all in perspectives yesterday during the Greatest Debate on Earth: when President Kennedy announced that the USA wanted to go to the moon, they did not have the technology – but 7 years later the USA were on the moon. It is a matter of will – from the EU, from the USA, from China – and all the other major emitters of greenhouse gasses. It is necessary that all take part in the deal – with only the industrialised countries committing to reduce emissions (even if they are substantial), and the developing countries (including China) continuing their unsustainable growth and thus increase in emissions, temperatures will still rise far above 2 degrees Celcius.

Are the world leaders ready to cease the moment and make substantial commitments – both in emission reductions but also with financial commitments to help the developing world with a green development – in order to ensure the survival of countries like the Maldives and Kiribati? I hope so and look forward to see what this crucial Friday brings us.

I finally gained access to the blog. Speaking of access: after having walked from Ørestad station to the Bella Center yesterday, I was one of the many NGO’s who were denied access to the Center and the proceedings. I was very much looking forward to finally being able to monitor proceedings and network with our friends from other UNA’s as well as other organisations. It was therefore greatly disappointing to be left out in the cold.

There has, as Morten Thulstrup also writes, been obvious logistical problems and poor planning in terms of accrediting far more people than space in the Bella Center warranted. And the level of interest and presence, has no doubt surprised the organisers.

However, one is also left with the impression that the atmosphere in general at this COP has been rather more volatile and nervous, also taking into account events taking place outside the Bella Center. The  role of the  NGOs/IGOs at this COP, compared to previous meetings and summits, has been more observatory rather that participatory, due to seemingly fewer direct lines to the negotiating channels, and possibly because of the hightened urgency of reaching a deal at  COP15 and the hightened focus on this particualr COP. In this climate (punt intended…), negotiators, govenments and possibly the UN might fear that NGO/IGO inclusion could “cloud” issues and prolong negotiations.

Whatever the reasons, I will join other voices on this blog, in hoping that some lessons, for future meetings and summits, will have been learnt from the Copenhagen experience, and if not that the debate and insistence on participation will be kept alive.

I have decided not to go to Bella or other places with activities today, but to follow the battle from the TV screens- TV 2 news and BBC world, which in periods have sent live from Bella Center.

There is a lot to discuss given the recent developments – both on how the Danish chairmanship lead the negotiations, and how the Danish police and court system treat people with good will participating in non-violent demonstrations.

Lars Løkke – despite he has diplomats and civil servants with experience as assistants – acts a little bit like the local politician from Græsted-Gilleleje municipality.

He lowered already at a meeting in Singapore a month ago the expectations to COP15 saying that a (non-binding) political agreement would be the aim – not paying attention to the fact that the poorest of the developing countries always have said that a protocol – legal binding agreement – built on top of the already existing Kyoto protocol (binding) should be aimed at – how could Løkke misread the power behind as much as 133 countries in the group of 77 including countries such as India and Brazil and South Africa + China. That’s not smart.

The paper which all waited for today was a paper, where he (Løkke) had made the compromises
for the countries (so they just had to say yes). The group of 77 + China want of course to be directly involved in the compromise text.
And later he suffered the humiliation that he promised never to publish the paper which had been prepared that way, and secondly reintroduce “Madame Connie”, which she is called by spokesman Lumumba from the group of 77.

Secondly, it is a disgrace that the leaders of the non-violent demonstration yesterday have been imprisoned – their mobiles have been taped and the information used against them– the mother of one of the girls (one of the spokespersons of Climate justice network) gave a strong statement in TV 2 news a moment ago. And suggested that we need a broad debate on human rights in this country after cop15.

Jørn

During a NGO briefing with the newly elected Danish Climate Minister Lykke Friis, it was announced that the Danish Government has booked Forum in the center of Copenhagen in order to offer the many NGO/IGO representatives which will not be able to enter the Bella Center an alternative option. At Forum there will be live streaming from the plenary sessions.

While this initiative is a nice gesture as opposed to doing nothing, it can not overshadow the fact that the logistics during the COP15 have been poorly organized at its best. This way NGO’s will at least have a common setting from where to continue their meetings and discussions in relation to the ongoing negotiations.

One can however not help feel that the NGO’s once again have been derailed from the political process and there is no doubt that the lack of a NGO presence in the Bella center will hurt the least developed countries the most, as they are highly dependent on the help from NGO’s to prepare and engage in the negotiations with the larger and richer countries.

The “blame-game” is likely to continue between the UN and the Danish Government as the host country. So far Denmark has however been quick to deny all responsibility for the mess. Two points does nonetheless seems evident. Firstly, choosing the Bella Center as the location for the event was an obvious mistake – it is simply too small! And secondly – accrediting five times as many people to enter the conference as it is capable of hosting was an act of logistic madness considering the exceptional circumstances surrounding COP15. It should have been expected that a much higher percentage of the accredited NGO’s than it is usually the case would have an ambition to take advantage of their access.

Rumors have been swarming concerning how many NGO/IGO delegates that would be admitted to the two last high level sessions taking place from tomorrow. The initial estimates were 1000 NGO’s during thursday and as little as 90 during friday! Recently the organizers have however following a lot of pressure, agreed to throw a bone to the civil society and has raised the amount of participants during friday to 500… While it is a considerably increase from 90, it is still a ridiculously low amount and does not reflect positively upon the willingness to listen to the civil society.

So the NGO and IGO representatives are slowly becoming an endangered species here in the Bella Center… One may say that the effects of climate change is apparent even in here!

This means that I at least will not have the opportunity to be present in the Bella Center from tomorrow and the day after. Considering that many of the ” meetings are taking place in secrecy anyways, it properly wont matter much anyways.

Let’s hope that the UN at least learns something from the organizational mess they have gotten themselves into during the last week of the conference and that the lack of respect for a NGO/IGO presence during the high level negotiations is not something that will be continued in future UN conference’s.

 Writing this the Danish PM Lars Loekke is trying to open the High Level Plenary, but Brazil, India, China, Ecuador and Sudan/G77 do not wish to proceed before the text from the AWG-LCA is on the table, and are very concerned about the planned tabling of a new Danish text.

 UN SG Ban Ki-Moon is also facing trouble in the corridors:

 Financial Times quoted by BBC:

“UN chief Ban Ki-moon suggests a climate change deal might not include a figure on financial aid for developing countries.”

 While in speech at COP15 Tuesday

“Financing will be key, particularly in helping the poorest countries. That is why we can welcome the emerging consensus among developed countries to provide approximately $10 billion dollars annually for the next three years to The Copenhagen Launch Fund. With this money, we can deliver real results: strengthen climate resilience; limit deforestation; jump-start; low emissions growth. But a fast start is just that, a start. $10 billion annually will not solve all our problems. Here in Copenhagen we must also address medium and long-term financing scaled up to needs. We cannot leave here without an understanding of how we will proceed on this vital question.”

 A text w.o. long-term financial aid is not an option.

Udtalelse fra FN-forbundets næstformand, Torleif Jonasson, i forbindelse med udelukkelsen af civilsamfundet fra COP15:

Så sent som lørdag gik op mod 100.000 mennesker fra hele verden på gaden her i København for at vise politikere og ministre, at vi ønsker en stærk og retfærdig klimaaftale. Connie Hedegaard tog som formand for forhandlingerne med slet skjult begejstring imod med ordene: ”Tak for Jeres skub og Jeres støtte.”  

Kun to dage senere meddeler UNFCCC, at antallet af civilsamfundets repræsentanter under klimaforhandlingernes slutløb denne uge vil blive reduceret til 1.000 torsdag, fredag til bare 90.  

Hvad det betyder i praksis er, at civilsamfundet – der i forvejen har haft svært ved at komme til orde op til og under klimaforhandlingerne – bliver henvist til anden række og de facto udelukkes fra at overvåge beslutningsprocessen og medvirke til et godt resultat. 

FN-forbundet er dybt forundret overfor dette træk fra UNFCCC’s side. Selvfølgelig skal der være plads til de mange stats- og regeringsledere, der kommer ind fra alle verdens hjørner for at stå på talerstolen. Men for en organisation, der bygger på dét fundament, der lyder ’We, the Peoples of the United Nations’ må og skal civilsamfundet inddrages!

Is Copenhagen the place where a global ambitious agreement on climate changes will be made or is it the place where all parties in the climate negotiations will agree that now is the time to act, but by the end of the day, they fail to agree on how to act upon climate changes in an ambitious manner? Day 1, week two – we are getting closer to the end of the conference and the question is how it all looks on Friday.

I was lucky to attend the side event today on “Greenland Ice Sheet – Melting snow and ice: Calls for Action”. Prominent people like Al Gore, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Per Stig Møller and two well known scientists Dorthe Dahl-Jensen and Bob Corell were among the speakers at the event. All the speakers at the event agreed that it is necessary to act now, and the findings presented at the event left the audience without a douth, that actions must be taken now. Recent findings on the smelting of the ice cap in Greenland shows that, apparently, the predictions from the IPCC report in 2007 have shown to be too modest. The ice is smelting with an alarming speed not seen before – 3-4 times quicker than previously predicted. According to Bob Corell a sea level rise of 1 meter, which can be a reality within the next 50-90 years will result in 145 million people having to move from their homes – they will be climate refugees. The ice in Greenland, on the North Pole and in Antarctica is getting smaller and thinner – and when the permafrost is melting, the global CO2 emissions will double, according to Al Gore. Furthermore, increased temperatures and less ice in the Himalayas greatly affects the 7 great rivers in Asia which supply water to 40 % of the world population.

No matter how you twist and turn it, the numbers from the scientists tell the story of how pressing it is to reach an ambitious agreement in Copenhagen. The question is if the leaders are ready to go all the way to make sure that we will not see the consequences of these predictions. Are we gaining momentum in Copenhagen or not?

It is difficult to chose. This morning I was split in my mind: should I go to DGI, where there are discussions more to my heart, or go to the BC (Bella Centre), where power, media and real things happen.
So I decided to take a round in the DGI a couple of hours, but ended up later in the BC. First I met our Brazilian WFUNA representative (the international politics professor from RIO), and he got me into a very well attended meeting on the international cooperation on the Congo basin (the third biggest rainforest in the world (no 1 Amazonos (Brazil), 2. Indonesia). There were quite a lot of African ministers – the Congo basin cooperation has 8-10 Sub-Saharan central African states and esp. Germany supports them – also the new German development minister spoke. But, but, but—it was in French. I tried for half an hour, but I had to give up – my French is not what it used to be- or maybe it has never really been there, – so I left my good friend, the Rio professor, who understood everything.

Then I attended a very interesting session given by the Bhutanese delegation on the concept of Gross National Happiness – how GNP with its one-dimensional reliance on material wealth was insufficient, so they told about how ecological sustainability; spiritual aspects; cultural and historical traditions of the country should be the cornerstone of measuring GNH (Gross National Happiness). They also told about the eco-policy of the country: The reliance on hydro-power;
that they have included in their constitution that 60% of the land should be covered with forests.

They were dressed in the national clothes, and their government minister in the panel was called his Excellency.

And after the 1,5 hours session the Bhutanese delegation gave a reception with good food and plenty of drinks.

So I left in good mood with a lot of papers and stuff I would probably not have time to read, but I will try my best.