Yesterday (19/11/13) I commented on Twitter that the daily overview schedule for this year's summit is not the most useful document of this type I have ever come across. To some extent this seems to have triggered off that long running argument about public access that is always in the background. After all there are parties who are infuriated that this type of summit is even going on let alone that people like me are allowed to learn about and even get involved in it.
Therefore I feel I should start by pointing out that this year I've experienced very little problem getting hold of relevant documents. What I have experienced though is a great deal of trouble in finding the time to read and comprehend all these documents. After all you need to do a lot of background reading to even understand what the texts being circulated daily mean. For example today in between putting together the not strictly speaking necessary Rihanna post, the Greenpeace post and some really dull but time consuming domestic chores I've only been able to read the intial overview document on the Durban Platform for Adaptation (ADP). In fact if I'm being honest by the time I'd got on to the bit about transparency it had stopped going into my brain so I sort of gave up.
However tomorrow sees the final working day on the ADP before the results can be presented on Friday's (22/11/13) final day. Therefore I feel I should make some comment about it now. I should stress though that because I've not in any meaningful way followed the progress of the ADP since the opening of the summit this is really just my own ideas rather then a response to anything that has been said.
The main problem that strikes me is that it seems to be following the framework of the Kyoto Protocol which to be blunt did not work. Basically this sees nations divided into either rich nations or poor nations. The rich nations are expected to cap their greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions whilst providing money to the poor nations who allowed to continue growing their emissions while spending the money on development projects. This notion is based on the somewhat valid idea that the rich nations became rich nations by emitting ghg's that are now threatening the poor nations - a sort of historical debt. The problem is that the rich nations simply will not agree to this approach and the poor nations are in no position to force them to.
So although you only need to read the past nine months of this blog to see how the rich nations have been trying to collapse this summit the poor nations insistence that the rich nations must pay to settle this historical debt is also becoming a major barrier to progress. From the glimpses I've seen China appear to be leading this effort most probably in an attempt to avoid being reclassified as a rich nation. This is not only bad news for the entire planet but also could end up hampering poor nations development.
Take for example the area of mitigation. Here rich nations are expected to submit Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Commitments (NAMC's) which are simply self-decided reductions in ghg gas emissions. Certain nations *coughs* the US *coughs* are simply not going to set these targets or set them so low as to be meaningless. On the other hand poor nations are expected to submit Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA's). These are much more complicated and require the poor nations to explain to the rich nations exactly how they intend to economically develop themselves whilst reducing the ghg intensity of their economies. Given the way that certain rich nations have been behaving recently I and quite a few poor nations are more then a little worried that the rich nations won't be using this information to help the poor nations.
Therefore I think a better approach would be for all nations to submit NAMA's. That way the rich nations demands for information from the poor nations would be tempered by the amount of information they're prepared to give out about themselves creating a balance that helps build trust. It would also give a more accurate picture of global ghg intensity providing a more accurate starting point from which to negotiate reductions. It would also give rich nations incentive to undertake joined up green development strategies rather then simply chasing targets. Target chasing is of course how the UK responded to Kyoto and ended up getting themselves into quite a serious mess as a result.
Similarly in adaptation the rich nations seem to be expected to provide the latest technological developments to the poor nations either for free or at a heavy subsidy. In return the poor nations are expected to produce National Action Plan's (NAP's) explaining to the rich nations exactly how they plan to adapt to environmental hazards. Again I think it would be better for all nations to submit NAP's. That not only reduces the alarmingly imbalanced flow of information from poor nations to rich nations it also allows the poor nations the advantage of seeing what the rich nations are actually doing rather then what they just recommend to poor nations. The dumping of genetically modified crops on the developing world is a particular example of this.
The Green Climate Fund (GCF) was actually conceived specifically to allow the transfer of green technology without creating the culture of dependency between rich and poor nations. That's because there are actually many private companies who have developed green technologies off their own backs and now need to sell them to people in order to cover their costs. The only problem is the difference between the price the seller has to charge and the buyer can afford to pay. This can be solved with a variety of financial instruments such as loan guarantees that don't involve rich nations having to give poor nations cash.
On that last point I should mention that rather randomly today I've mostly been watching contributions from Bolivia who seem to have taken over the role of global village idiot from Venezuela. On both occasions I have seen a Bolivian delegate speak they have first raged against the rich nations for not giving them any money before loudly rejecting any market based system that would give them some money. That is not the path to a productive outcome.
23:15 on 20/11/13 (UK date).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment