Between Monday October 19th (19/10/15) and Friday October 23rd (23/10/15) parties to the United Nations Framework Agreement on Climate Change (UNFCCC) held their quarterly meeting at their headquarters in Bonn, Germany.
This was the last such meeting before the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) opens on November 30th (30/11/15) in Paris, France. It is at COP21 that a new global climate change deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol (KP) is scheduled to be finalised and signed.
Unfortunately the more time I have to reflect on the October meeting the more convinced I am that it was an utterly wasted opportunity.
For example the work stream covering mitigation actions spent much of the week challenging the core principle that has stood for the last 25 years that any agreement would tackle climate change by curbing the emission of Green House Gases (GHG's).
Instead certain parties wished to discuss undefined "Climate Forcers." This seemed to be nothing more then a device by nations that had no mitigation obligations under KP to rail against what they see as the former Annex I parties to force them into taking mitigation actions.
I will be charitable and assume that this is a result of those nations failing to understand the fundamental difference between this new agreement and the KP rather then being a deliberate attempt to shirk their shared responsibility.
At the core of this new agreement there is the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). Although there is a shared responsibility to be as ambitious as possible this format allows nations to determine themselves what action they will be taking and set their own reduction targets.
As a result there is no element of coercion within this agreement and nobody is being forced to do anything.
Elsewhere the Arab states tried to hijack the meeting entirely by turning it into a discussion on the Israel/Palestine conflict by demanding to know what protections would be afforded to "peoples under occupation."
This is a completely irrelevant issue because the protections under this agreement would be the exactly the same as the protections under the Geneva Conventions which cover war and military occupation.
If the Palestinians feel that the Israelis are not fulfilling its obligations under the relevant conventions there's not really much an agreement on climate change can do about that.
In fact despite my experience of both issues I wouldn't even know where to begin adapting the agreement to combine both topics.
However the diversion into such a controversial and intractable area does serve to disrupt the negotiations and reduce the chances of any agreement which of course is the primary objection of the oil rich Gulf states.
And sadly that's all the Palestinian cause is at the moment. A pawn in someone else's wider game.
The meeting ended with a decision that there will be no new negotiating text and the existing text will be carried forward as the basis for negotiation at COP21.
This is extremely alarming because the non-paper introduced at the start of the meeting is so vague as to be completely insufficient to form the basis of any agreement. I
t merely identifies areas such as "Mitigation," "Adaptation," "Finance," "Technology" and "Capacity Building" that may have some relevance to tackling climate change.
However with the section of Loss & Damage running to just 22 words it contains absolutely none of the detail required to determine how nations will act individually and collectively to address these areas as part of a functioning agreement.
The July text which grew out of the 2014 non-paper is significantly better.
However it still needs to be significantly reduced by replacing numerous options with agreed, coherent text. At the same time it needs to be expanded to include a section enshrining the peer review process and the compliance process.
This insistence that there will be no new text seems to have been borne out of a frustration by the Secretariat at the way that many nations have handled the negotiating process.
Rather then having been prepared to debate and compromise over the core concepts of the agreement many nations have simply been demanding that the Secretariat takes on board all of their slightly mad and often contradictory positions before returning with a 'miracle' text that will solve all of the problems.
Ironically many of these nations are the same ones complaining about having an agreement forced upon them.
The hope seems to be then that by making clear that there will be no new text nations will be forced to work with what they've got by deciding on options within the July text and combining them with the procedural elements from the recent non-paper.
I am far from convinced that this approach will work though because although the Mitigation, Adaptation and Loss & Damage sections of the July text are salvageable as are the procedural elements from the October non-paper key sections like the peer review and compliance processes still need to be written.
I do not understand how this will happen during the course of COP21.
As such I am becoming increasingly convinced that it is time to think the unthinkable and delay the signing of any new agreement until COP22 when hopefully the required work will have been completed.
If we are delaying the new agreement then perhaps we also need to consider whether existing climate finance arrangements can continue without a new agreement being signed.
18:00 on 27/10/15 (UK date).
Tuesday, 27 October 2015
Sunday, 25 October 2015
Everyone Ready for the Big Brown Bash.
Today saw the second Rugby Union World Cup semi-final between the "Pumas" of Argentina and the "Wallabies" of Australia. After yesterday's political intensity between South Africa and New Zealand this was pretty much just a rugby match.
Inspired by Aussie Rules Football the Wallabies had a lot of Ireland's pass and dance about them. However they brought with them a level of muscle the Irish clearly lacked.
So when the Puma's went in for their chop tackles the Australians just sort of carried on trying to work out why there was a little Argentinian clamped to their ankles. Likewise when the Pumas made their attack the Australian defence simply cut them down.
What really undid the match though was Australia's Simmons intercepting an early pass from Argentina's Sanchez and running through a converted try to give the Aussies a 7 point lead after just 90 seconds.
Although Sanchez tried to redeem himself with a 3 point penalty Ashely-Cooper quickly ran in another unconverted try. Along with another converted Ashley-Cooper try and two Puma's penalties this gave Australia a 19-9 half-time lead and plenty of excuse to take their foot off the gas in the second half.
While a further two Sanchez penalties took Argentina within a converted try of a draw Ashley-Carter became only the second player in history to score a semi-final hat-trick of tries giving Australia a 29-15 victory.
The only real issue was the performance of the English referee Wayne Barnes.
Having utterly humiliated himself in last Saturday's (17/10/15) quarter-final between South Africa and Wales Barnes seemed an odd choice to referee at this level. After all on election day any questionable decision by an Englishman against the Argentinians is likely to raise hell about the Falklands/Malvinas.
For the most part Barnes seemed to be attempting to dispel any allegations of anti-Welsh bias by demonstrating that he was an utterly incompetent referee. So there was poor decision after poor decision benefiting no team in particular.
There was an interesting moment when Argentina's Levani tackled low on Australia's Folau. Failing to use his arms to grab and taking Folau over the horizontal this was somewhere between a penalty and a yellow card.
However as it clearly wasn't a spear-tackle I would have erred towards penalty in an incident that was similar to Lydiate's tackle that prompted Mike Brown's tantrum in the England v Wales game.
Initially Barnes was happy to give the penalty. However the Television Match Official (TMO) put him on the spot and enquired as to whether with the quarter-final he was following the letter or the spirit of the law. Under pressure Barnes decided he was again following the letter of the law and sent Levani to the sin-bin for a harsh yellow card.
The big incident came late on with Ashley-Carter's final try. If Barnes had gone to the TMO and we'd all got our protractors out eventually we would have concluded that this was technically the result of a forward pass. However with both players running forward, the ball not being taken out of the way of a defender and it being a fine margin watching it live I think it was a spirited try.
Plus while the Argentinians will continue to dream of what might have been in the dying minutes it was really the difference between them losing 22-15 and them losing 29-15.
Anyway Australia now go on to meet New Zealand in Saturday's (31/10/15) final.
Although never in history have rugby fans rioted like football fans this is likely to be a grudge match between two rugby mad rivals driven largely by decades of New Zealanders being forced to say; "No actually I'm from New Zealand."
It's likely to be spiced up slightly by growing political tensions between the two nations. Due to a mutual visa free travel arrangement during Rihanna's 2013 Diamonds World Tour I temporarily designated Auckland, New Zealand as an Australian city.
However former Australian Prime Minister Abbott's anti-immigration policies have seen large numbers of New Zealander's deported after being released from prison. This has prompted the New Zealand government to sort of respond by going; "Oi, We're white, this sh*t isn't meant to apply to us. Plus you're Australian, most of you are f*cking criminals!"
Then there is the Chris Brown issue. In what I understand is now a final decision Australia banned him over his domestic violence convictions. However in an attempt to show loyalty to the English hosts of the tournament New Zealand then welcomed him with open arms.
We look forward to the matter being settled once and for all.
21:45 on 25/10/15 (UK date).
Inspired by Aussie Rules Football the Wallabies had a lot of Ireland's pass and dance about them. However they brought with them a level of muscle the Irish clearly lacked.
So when the Puma's went in for their chop tackles the Australians just sort of carried on trying to work out why there was a little Argentinian clamped to their ankles. Likewise when the Pumas made their attack the Australian defence simply cut them down.
What really undid the match though was Australia's Simmons intercepting an early pass from Argentina's Sanchez and running through a converted try to give the Aussies a 7 point lead after just 90 seconds.
Although Sanchez tried to redeem himself with a 3 point penalty Ashely-Cooper quickly ran in another unconverted try. Along with another converted Ashley-Cooper try and two Puma's penalties this gave Australia a 19-9 half-time lead and plenty of excuse to take their foot off the gas in the second half.
While a further two Sanchez penalties took Argentina within a converted try of a draw Ashley-Carter became only the second player in history to score a semi-final hat-trick of tries giving Australia a 29-15 victory.
The only real issue was the performance of the English referee Wayne Barnes.
Having utterly humiliated himself in last Saturday's (17/10/15) quarter-final between South Africa and Wales Barnes seemed an odd choice to referee at this level. After all on election day any questionable decision by an Englishman against the Argentinians is likely to raise hell about the Falklands/Malvinas.
For the most part Barnes seemed to be attempting to dispel any allegations of anti-Welsh bias by demonstrating that he was an utterly incompetent referee. So there was poor decision after poor decision benefiting no team in particular.
There was an interesting moment when Argentina's Levani tackled low on Australia's Folau. Failing to use his arms to grab and taking Folau over the horizontal this was somewhere between a penalty and a yellow card.
However as it clearly wasn't a spear-tackle I would have erred towards penalty in an incident that was similar to Lydiate's tackle that prompted Mike Brown's tantrum in the England v Wales game.
Initially Barnes was happy to give the penalty. However the Television Match Official (TMO) put him on the spot and enquired as to whether with the quarter-final he was following the letter or the spirit of the law. Under pressure Barnes decided he was again following the letter of the law and sent Levani to the sin-bin for a harsh yellow card.
The big incident came late on with Ashley-Carter's final try. If Barnes had gone to the TMO and we'd all got our protractors out eventually we would have concluded that this was technically the result of a forward pass. However with both players running forward, the ball not being taken out of the way of a defender and it being a fine margin watching it live I think it was a spirited try.
Plus while the Argentinians will continue to dream of what might have been in the dying minutes it was really the difference between them losing 22-15 and them losing 29-15.
Anyway Australia now go on to meet New Zealand in Saturday's (31/10/15) final.
Although never in history have rugby fans rioted like football fans this is likely to be a grudge match between two rugby mad rivals driven largely by decades of New Zealanders being forced to say; "No actually I'm from New Zealand."
It's likely to be spiced up slightly by growing political tensions between the two nations. Due to a mutual visa free travel arrangement during Rihanna's 2013 Diamonds World Tour I temporarily designated Auckland, New Zealand as an Australian city.
However former Australian Prime Minister Abbott's anti-immigration policies have seen large numbers of New Zealander's deported after being released from prison. This has prompted the New Zealand government to sort of respond by going; "Oi, We're white, this sh*t isn't meant to apply to us. Plus you're Australian, most of you are f*cking criminals!"
Then there is the Chris Brown issue. In what I understand is now a final decision Australia banned him over his domestic violence convictions. However in an attempt to show loyalty to the English hosts of the tournament New Zealand then welcomed him with open arms.
We look forward to the matter being settled once and for all.
21:45 on 25/10/15 (UK date).
Saturday, 24 October 2015
Damn Blacks.
Today has seen the racially charged Rugby Union World Cup semi-final between the "Springboks" of South Africa and the "All Blacks" of New Zealand.
Although it is changing now the game has gone professional Rugby Union has this long tradition of being a game you only really start playing properly at university. After graduating you then take a few years off to play at the top level before retiring to get on with your professional career as like a doctor or a lawyer.
This culture may be one possible explanation why some 25 years after the end of apartheid South Africa's rugby team still has so few black players.
After all apartheid has been replaced by a sort of economic apartheid where the white families that did well under the old system continue to do well sending their children - and now grandchildren - off to private school and the best universities while the black families like the Marikana miners riot to earn enough simply to send their kids to school.
The issue of black South Africans access to higher education has been hot news this week. On Wednesday (21/10/15) South Africa's Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene released a mid-term budget. The headline of the budget was a 6% increase in university tuition fees.
Although the South African government will continue to subsidise black university students to make up for the inequalities of the apartheid era this increase risked taking a university education out of the reach and would certainly make it much more expensive.
Needless to say this announcement was met with vigorous protests by students and their supporters. The most violent of these protests occurred on Friday (23/10/15) outside the seat of the South African government - the Union Building - in Pretoria in which saw fires set. rocks thrown and the police responding with tear gas, stun grenades and rubber bullets in some of the worst rioting South Africa has seen since the end of apartheid.
Although for the the most part the protesters have been as ethnically diverse as South Africa is there have been attempts by the radical Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party of Julius Malema to turn the protests into a race issue - in the EFF world everything is a race issue. For example EFF MP's had to be removed from Parliament because they kept disrupting the budget speech with chants of "Fees Must Fall" which was the slogan of the protests.
Malema and the EFF are exactly the sort of people who would support the All Blacks over the Springboks despite New Zealand not exactly being famous for its racial diversity.
For a while now the EFF have been reaching out to South Africa's students in the hope of getting them to act as a street army for the party.
For example they were a driving force behind the protests earlier this year to get the statue of Cecil Rhodes removed from the grounds of Cape Town university in case black students found this symbol of colonialism intimidating. They also want to see the Afrikaans portion of South Africa's multi-lingual national anthem removed for the exact same reason.
I personally don't see either of these as really the main issue facing modern South Africa at the moment.
The EFF's outreach to students is heavily inspired by US President Obama's own Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The fact that EFF is also heavily influenced by Zimbabwe's (nee Rhodesia) Robert Mugabe explains why BLM has really destroyed Obama's credibility as leader.
It was of course further destroyed by BLM's decision to react to the Charleston shooting which had strong links to both apartheid era South Africa and Rhodesia by demanding that statues of US Civil War generals were removed - just like the EFF and Cecil Rhodes.
In response to the Union Building protests South African President Jacob Zuma caved and scrapped the 6% fee increase for at least the next year. This struck me as extremely weak leadership.
If the fee increase is something Zuma needed to introduce for the sake of the national economy then he needs to be prepared to stare down the protests no matter how violent they get. I know I make that sound really tough but it could involve some concessions around the edges such as increasing grants to the poorest students.
If the fee increase isn't something Zuma needed to do for the good of the nation the question is really why the hell did he try doing it in the first place?
It is obvious that Zuma is going to have to do something because aside from the fees issue the rest of the budget was pretty grim. Growth forecasts have been cut from 2 & 2.4% to 1.5 & 1.7%, tax revenues have fallen by R35bn (USD 2.45bn) and government debt has increased to R600bn (USD42bn) pushing South Africa bonds closer to junk status and the country closer to a Greek-style collapse.
Although there are some global pressures such as falling demand for commodities and the flight of investment into the BRIC economies following the 2008 financial meltdown most of South Africa's problems stem from the fact Zuma's African National Congress (ANC) have ruled South Africa as an effective one party state for the past 20 years. The lack of competition has made them fat and lazy.
However I think we all know what the pro-apartheid AWB will blame while the EFF are blaming "Colonialism."
South Africa's problems actually had a lot of relevance to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that concluded in Bonn, Germany on Friday (23/10/15).
For example efforts to create a new climate change agreement are known as the "Durban Platform" after Durban, South Africa where is was conceived. The incompetence US President Obama has show in his support for BLM has also unsettled the negotiations. Finally South Africa is the current head of the Group of 77 (G77) less developed nations in negotiations.
Within those negotiations there was lots of discussion about how nations will switch from making intensity reductions to absolute reductions as their economies grow. I should point out that the peer review process will not only provide that but also a mechanism for nations obligations to reduce as their economies shrink. Sadly that seems to be the path that South Africa is currently on.
The ANC's fat and lazy leadership was on full display during the Bonn meeting. Admittedly speaking on behalf of the wider group South Africa made clear that it would veto any agreement that required all nations - regardless of economic circumstance - to take action to tackle climate change.
This is a very unwise position to take because although all nations will have to take some action there is a lot of freedom in what that action can be depending on a nation's economic circumstance.
For example the Least Developed Countries (LDC) could well fulfil their obligation by teaming up with a charity to provide solar powered lamps to farmers or simply by spending money on adaptation work they were going to do anyway.
There are also a lot of co-benefits to taking action.
Using South Africa as an example under the apartheid system only whites were allowed to live in the cities and suburbs while the blacks were locked away in townships like Soweto. Economics means that much of this system is largely in place forcing the residents of the townships to travel great distances into the cities.
If South Africa were to invest in clean, low carbon transport from the townships to the cities it would help reduce emissions in the transport sector and therefore count towards their contribution. There may even be extra money available to help South Africa solve what is considered a wider social problem.
South Africa's big problem though is the electricity crisis. This too has it's roots in apartheid when they only built enough power stations for the whites. However the ANC has had more then 20 years to build more power stations even if their Communist wing are opposed to it. If South Africa were to build clean, renewable power stations it would certainly count towards the nation's commitments and probably bring money with it.
Although it seemed to just be a rugby match today's game could well have served as a metaphor for many of the issues surrounding South Africa's political woes.
As we saw from the quarter-final against France the All Blacks are simply too good. If they're given the freedom to pass and move the ball around they become able to completely overwhelm their opposition in way that even for a neutral can be painful to watch.
In today's game the Springboks were clearly aware of the danger and focused their efforts on denying the All Blacks the opportunity to establish that devastating rhythm. They did this by tackling the moment any All Black got the ball forcing the break-down and then the ruck.
Although to an outsider it can just look like a pile of men all lying on top of each other there are actually a vast number of highly technical rules that apply during break-downs and rucks. For example you have to stay onside, you can't enter from the side, you have to roll away or release the ball at appropriate time and as always you must never pass the ball forward.
These highly technical rules are actually different depending on whether it is a break-down or a ruck. To confuse matters further the only difference between a break-down and a ruck seems to be that at some point the referee will shout either "Tackle!" meaning it's still a break-down or "Ruck!"
One area where I think rugby is better then football is that it is a great test of character for a player to follow all these complex rules while they're frustrated at the play breaking down and they've got one big bloke stamping on their ankle while another elbows them in the face. As a result self-discipline is considered a big thing in rugby and even the top players sometimes fall short.
A prime example of this occurred on 38 minutes when New Zealand's Kaino got his yellow card. A experienced player at that level knows full well that he can't run in from off-side and go for the ball. But in the heat of the moment that's exactly what he did.
Having not really been forced to play like this all tournament the All Blacks self-discipline was sorely lacking in the first half.
Despite Kaino scoring the only five point try of the half which was converted by Carter for two points the All Blacks still ended the half 12-7 down with all of the Springbok's points coming from three point penalty kicks.
With Kaino still in the sin-bin Carter shocked the 'boks early in the second-half with a three point drop (kick) goal. Beauden Barrett then added a try that was converted by Carter who also scored pretty much the only penalty the 'boks conceded all game.
The big difference though is that while the 'boks were tiring from all the tackling the All Black's discipline dramatically improved. In the first half they conceded nine penalties while in the second they only conceded two both of which were scored.
As a result New Zealand won the game 20-18 and progress to the final while I'm obligated to end this post with the phrase;
"Look what the blacks can achieve when they learn to control themselves!"
21:10 on 24/10/15 (UK date).
Although it is changing now the game has gone professional Rugby Union has this long tradition of being a game you only really start playing properly at university. After graduating you then take a few years off to play at the top level before retiring to get on with your professional career as like a doctor or a lawyer.
This culture may be one possible explanation why some 25 years after the end of apartheid South Africa's rugby team still has so few black players.
After all apartheid has been replaced by a sort of economic apartheid where the white families that did well under the old system continue to do well sending their children - and now grandchildren - off to private school and the best universities while the black families like the Marikana miners riot to earn enough simply to send their kids to school.
The issue of black South Africans access to higher education has been hot news this week. On Wednesday (21/10/15) South Africa's Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene released a mid-term budget. The headline of the budget was a 6% increase in university tuition fees.
Although the South African government will continue to subsidise black university students to make up for the inequalities of the apartheid era this increase risked taking a university education out of the reach and would certainly make it much more expensive.
Needless to say this announcement was met with vigorous protests by students and their supporters. The most violent of these protests occurred on Friday (23/10/15) outside the seat of the South African government - the Union Building - in Pretoria in which saw fires set. rocks thrown and the police responding with tear gas, stun grenades and rubber bullets in some of the worst rioting South Africa has seen since the end of apartheid.
Although for the the most part the protesters have been as ethnically diverse as South Africa is there have been attempts by the radical Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party of Julius Malema to turn the protests into a race issue - in the EFF world everything is a race issue. For example EFF MP's had to be removed from Parliament because they kept disrupting the budget speech with chants of "Fees Must Fall" which was the slogan of the protests.
Malema and the EFF are exactly the sort of people who would support the All Blacks over the Springboks despite New Zealand not exactly being famous for its racial diversity.
For a while now the EFF have been reaching out to South Africa's students in the hope of getting them to act as a street army for the party.
For example they were a driving force behind the protests earlier this year to get the statue of Cecil Rhodes removed from the grounds of Cape Town university in case black students found this symbol of colonialism intimidating. They also want to see the Afrikaans portion of South Africa's multi-lingual national anthem removed for the exact same reason.
I personally don't see either of these as really the main issue facing modern South Africa at the moment.
The EFF's outreach to students is heavily inspired by US President Obama's own Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The fact that EFF is also heavily influenced by Zimbabwe's (nee Rhodesia) Robert Mugabe explains why BLM has really destroyed Obama's credibility as leader.
It was of course further destroyed by BLM's decision to react to the Charleston shooting which had strong links to both apartheid era South Africa and Rhodesia by demanding that statues of US Civil War generals were removed - just like the EFF and Cecil Rhodes.
In response to the Union Building protests South African President Jacob Zuma caved and scrapped the 6% fee increase for at least the next year. This struck me as extremely weak leadership.
If the fee increase is something Zuma needed to introduce for the sake of the national economy then he needs to be prepared to stare down the protests no matter how violent they get. I know I make that sound really tough but it could involve some concessions around the edges such as increasing grants to the poorest students.
If the fee increase isn't something Zuma needed to do for the good of the nation the question is really why the hell did he try doing it in the first place?
It is obvious that Zuma is going to have to do something because aside from the fees issue the rest of the budget was pretty grim. Growth forecasts have been cut from 2 & 2.4% to 1.5 & 1.7%, tax revenues have fallen by R35bn (USD 2.45bn) and government debt has increased to R600bn (USD42bn) pushing South Africa bonds closer to junk status and the country closer to a Greek-style collapse.
Although there are some global pressures such as falling demand for commodities and the flight of investment into the BRIC economies following the 2008 financial meltdown most of South Africa's problems stem from the fact Zuma's African National Congress (ANC) have ruled South Africa as an effective one party state for the past 20 years. The lack of competition has made them fat and lazy.
However I think we all know what the pro-apartheid AWB will blame while the EFF are blaming "Colonialism."
South Africa's problems actually had a lot of relevance to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that concluded in Bonn, Germany on Friday (23/10/15).
For example efforts to create a new climate change agreement are known as the "Durban Platform" after Durban, South Africa where is was conceived. The incompetence US President Obama has show in his support for BLM has also unsettled the negotiations. Finally South Africa is the current head of the Group of 77 (G77) less developed nations in negotiations.
Within those negotiations there was lots of discussion about how nations will switch from making intensity reductions to absolute reductions as their economies grow. I should point out that the peer review process will not only provide that but also a mechanism for nations obligations to reduce as their economies shrink. Sadly that seems to be the path that South Africa is currently on.
The ANC's fat and lazy leadership was on full display during the Bonn meeting. Admittedly speaking on behalf of the wider group South Africa made clear that it would veto any agreement that required all nations - regardless of economic circumstance - to take action to tackle climate change.
This is a very unwise position to take because although all nations will have to take some action there is a lot of freedom in what that action can be depending on a nation's economic circumstance.
For example the Least Developed Countries (LDC) could well fulfil their obligation by teaming up with a charity to provide solar powered lamps to farmers or simply by spending money on adaptation work they were going to do anyway.
There are also a lot of co-benefits to taking action.
Using South Africa as an example under the apartheid system only whites were allowed to live in the cities and suburbs while the blacks were locked away in townships like Soweto. Economics means that much of this system is largely in place forcing the residents of the townships to travel great distances into the cities.
If South Africa were to invest in clean, low carbon transport from the townships to the cities it would help reduce emissions in the transport sector and therefore count towards their contribution. There may even be extra money available to help South Africa solve what is considered a wider social problem.
South Africa's big problem though is the electricity crisis. This too has it's roots in apartheid when they only built enough power stations for the whites. However the ANC has had more then 20 years to build more power stations even if their Communist wing are opposed to it. If South Africa were to build clean, renewable power stations it would certainly count towards the nation's commitments and probably bring money with it.
Although it seemed to just be a rugby match today's game could well have served as a metaphor for many of the issues surrounding South Africa's political woes.
As we saw from the quarter-final against France the All Blacks are simply too good. If they're given the freedom to pass and move the ball around they become able to completely overwhelm their opposition in way that even for a neutral can be painful to watch.
In today's game the Springboks were clearly aware of the danger and focused their efforts on denying the All Blacks the opportunity to establish that devastating rhythm. They did this by tackling the moment any All Black got the ball forcing the break-down and then the ruck.
Although to an outsider it can just look like a pile of men all lying on top of each other there are actually a vast number of highly technical rules that apply during break-downs and rucks. For example you have to stay onside, you can't enter from the side, you have to roll away or release the ball at appropriate time and as always you must never pass the ball forward.
These highly technical rules are actually different depending on whether it is a break-down or a ruck. To confuse matters further the only difference between a break-down and a ruck seems to be that at some point the referee will shout either "Tackle!" meaning it's still a break-down or "Ruck!"
One area where I think rugby is better then football is that it is a great test of character for a player to follow all these complex rules while they're frustrated at the play breaking down and they've got one big bloke stamping on their ankle while another elbows them in the face. As a result self-discipline is considered a big thing in rugby and even the top players sometimes fall short.
A prime example of this occurred on 38 minutes when New Zealand's Kaino got his yellow card. A experienced player at that level knows full well that he can't run in from off-side and go for the ball. But in the heat of the moment that's exactly what he did.
Having not really been forced to play like this all tournament the All Blacks self-discipline was sorely lacking in the first half.
Despite Kaino scoring the only five point try of the half which was converted by Carter for two points the All Blacks still ended the half 12-7 down with all of the Springbok's points coming from three point penalty kicks.
With Kaino still in the sin-bin Carter shocked the 'boks early in the second-half with a three point drop (kick) goal. Beauden Barrett then added a try that was converted by Carter who also scored pretty much the only penalty the 'boks conceded all game.
The big difference though is that while the 'boks were tiring from all the tackling the All Black's discipline dramatically improved. In the first half they conceded nine penalties while in the second they only conceded two both of which were scored.
As a result New Zealand won the game 20-18 and progress to the final while I'm obligated to end this post with the phrase;
"Look what the blacks can achieve when they learn to control themselves!"
21:10 on 24/10/15 (UK date).
Thursday, 22 October 2015
ADP: We're Doomed.
Prior to the 20th Conference of Parties (COP21) the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) produced a draft negotiating text of the agreement that is scheduled to be signed at COP21.
The idea was always that nations would add and modify this text before it became an actual agreement. However this process rapidly spiralled out of control with nations all trying to add their own little exemptions. As a result the text quickly grew from 30 pages to close to 90 pages and some sections not only became unworkable but utterly unreadable.
My hope for the UNFCCC meeting that is currently taking place in Bonn, Germany is that the text would be dramatically cut down to size as individual exemptions were removed and options were agreed upon.
However just before the meeting the Secretariat produced an entirely new draft text that had been cut to probably less then it's bare bones.
This text does included useful sections on the procedural elements of the agreement such as how certain terms will be defined and where the agreement will be deposited after signing. However in terms of the meat of the agreement such as mitigation and adaptation this new draft is so vague as to be utterly useless.
I think the intention was that over the course of the week nations would go off and add to this draft using elements of the previous draft. Unfortunately nations - particularly the poorer and less capable ones - have go off and repeated the exact mistake. That is to say they have simply produced a long list of exemptions for their particular circumstances.
This is extremely alarming because it shows that just 51 days before the deadline many nations still haven't made the break through in thinking that is needed to create a successful agreement.
They still seem to be under the impression that this new agreement will be an agreement like the Kyoto Protocol which it replaces that will last for 10 to 20 years. Under this type of agreement every specific little detail about a nation's individual circumstances does need to be accounted for in the agreement text.
However the type of agreement we are trying to create here is intended to last for 80-100 years. What we're trying to do now is establish the framework under which future arguments will be had.
For example by including a conditional/additional portion on the INDC's we are creating a mechanism whereby poorer nations with good ideas can secure funding for those ideas from richer nations.
In this type of agreement not every detail about a nation's specific circumstances needs to be established within the text because those circumstances will change over the lifetime of the agreement.
A particular example of the problem is that the new text includes vague provisions for a global stock take of progress. This is something that will occur simply as a by-product of an ex post review process. However neither draft of the text outlines a process by which an ex post review will take place.
What I hope will happen over the final day of this meeting and in the weeks running up to COP21 is that nations will go back to June draft and streamline the text by identifying the options they can accept.
For example the reason why I've been going through the June text section by section is because with the changes I've made I consider those sections on mitigation adaptation and loss & damage to be ready for inclusion in the agreement.
I will agree though that I and others need to do more work on streamlining the remaining sections while producing wording for sections that currently do not exist. A section dealing with the peer review process for example.
Unless this work is done prior to COP21 then there simply won't be an agreement to sign and the specific exemptions and reassurances that nations have worked so hard to have included in the text won't apply to anyone.
19:30 on 22/10/15 (UK date).
Edited at around 11:25 on 23/10/15 (UK date) to add;
When I rush I tend to rant.
However another example of how the big picture is perhaps being lost in all the specific details is this issue of transition. Across the course of this meeting nations have been trying to devise a mechanism of how nations that currently submit intensity reductions transition to submitting absolute reductions. The peer review process already provides this mechanism.
As part of the ex ante review nations such as India and China who are on the verge of having to make the transition will likely find two or three nations criticising them for not having already done so. Assuming a group size of eight though this won't be enough to change the synthesis report.
At the first ex post review they may well find that three or four nations are raising the issue. However because the swing nation doesn't feel strongly enough about it the criticism will be left out of the synthesis report.
At the next ex ante these nations might find that it's five or six nations raising the issue changing the outcome of the synthesis report. At the next ex post review the majority of the group will indicate that it's time for the nation to change.
At this point the nation will know that it's next submission will have to be an absolute reduction rather then an intensity reduction having been given 15 years of constructive warnings.
Added to that you will have the work of the compliance committee that this meeting has been trying to develop. However that is an area that still requires a lot of work.
I should point out though that I am deadly serious about there not being an agreement. If either the June text or the new text is presented as an agreement to be signed at COP21 my advice will be that no-one should sign up to it.
I am even at the point of considering delaying the signing to allow the negotiations to continue for another year.
I say that fully understanding that there isn't another year to waste. However it has got to be better to take no action for one year rather then spending the next 10,20,30 years taking action that isn't going to work anyway.
The idea was always that nations would add and modify this text before it became an actual agreement. However this process rapidly spiralled out of control with nations all trying to add their own little exemptions. As a result the text quickly grew from 30 pages to close to 90 pages and some sections not only became unworkable but utterly unreadable.
My hope for the UNFCCC meeting that is currently taking place in Bonn, Germany is that the text would be dramatically cut down to size as individual exemptions were removed and options were agreed upon.
However just before the meeting the Secretariat produced an entirely new draft text that had been cut to probably less then it's bare bones.
This text does included useful sections on the procedural elements of the agreement such as how certain terms will be defined and where the agreement will be deposited after signing. However in terms of the meat of the agreement such as mitigation and adaptation this new draft is so vague as to be utterly useless.
I think the intention was that over the course of the week nations would go off and add to this draft using elements of the previous draft. Unfortunately nations - particularly the poorer and less capable ones - have go off and repeated the exact mistake. That is to say they have simply produced a long list of exemptions for their particular circumstances.
This is extremely alarming because it shows that just 51 days before the deadline many nations still haven't made the break through in thinking that is needed to create a successful agreement.
They still seem to be under the impression that this new agreement will be an agreement like the Kyoto Protocol which it replaces that will last for 10 to 20 years. Under this type of agreement every specific little detail about a nation's individual circumstances does need to be accounted for in the agreement text.
However the type of agreement we are trying to create here is intended to last for 80-100 years. What we're trying to do now is establish the framework under which future arguments will be had.
For example by including a conditional/additional portion on the INDC's we are creating a mechanism whereby poorer nations with good ideas can secure funding for those ideas from richer nations.
In this type of agreement not every detail about a nation's specific circumstances needs to be established within the text because those circumstances will change over the lifetime of the agreement.
A particular example of the problem is that the new text includes vague provisions for a global stock take of progress. This is something that will occur simply as a by-product of an ex post review process. However neither draft of the text outlines a process by which an ex post review will take place.
What I hope will happen over the final day of this meeting and in the weeks running up to COP21 is that nations will go back to June draft and streamline the text by identifying the options they can accept.
For example the reason why I've been going through the June text section by section is because with the changes I've made I consider those sections on mitigation adaptation and loss & damage to be ready for inclusion in the agreement.
I will agree though that I and others need to do more work on streamlining the remaining sections while producing wording for sections that currently do not exist. A section dealing with the peer review process for example.
Unless this work is done prior to COP21 then there simply won't be an agreement to sign and the specific exemptions and reassurances that nations have worked so hard to have included in the text won't apply to anyone.
19:30 on 22/10/15 (UK date).
Edited at around 11:25 on 23/10/15 (UK date) to add;
When I rush I tend to rant.
However another example of how the big picture is perhaps being lost in all the specific details is this issue of transition. Across the course of this meeting nations have been trying to devise a mechanism of how nations that currently submit intensity reductions transition to submitting absolute reductions. The peer review process already provides this mechanism.
As part of the ex ante review nations such as India and China who are on the verge of having to make the transition will likely find two or three nations criticising them for not having already done so. Assuming a group size of eight though this won't be enough to change the synthesis report.
At the first ex post review they may well find that three or four nations are raising the issue. However because the swing nation doesn't feel strongly enough about it the criticism will be left out of the synthesis report.
At the next ex ante these nations might find that it's five or six nations raising the issue changing the outcome of the synthesis report. At the next ex post review the majority of the group will indicate that it's time for the nation to change.
At this point the nation will know that it's next submission will have to be an absolute reduction rather then an intensity reduction having been given 15 years of constructive warnings.
Added to that you will have the work of the compliance committee that this meeting has been trying to develop. However that is an area that still requires a lot of work.
I should point out though that I am deadly serious about there not being an agreement. If either the June text or the new text is presented as an agreement to be signed at COP21 my advice will be that no-one should sign up to it.
I am even at the point of considering delaying the signing to allow the negotiations to continue for another year.
I say that fully understanding that there isn't another year to waste. However it has got to be better to take no action for one year rather then spending the next 10,20,30 years taking action that isn't going to work anyway.
Swedish School Attack.
This morning (22/10/15) a masked man walked into a school in Trollhaten, Sweden and proceeded to attack staff and students with what is being described as a sword.
In the last few moments the death toll has risen to two. This includes and adult teacher and a student aged around 16 years old. With one other student seriously injured this death toll could rise as high as three. The attacker was shot and seriously wounded by police at the scene.
Although it has not been confirmed the attack was initially described as being at a school for immigrants. However I suspect once the initial shock and translation issues have been worked through this means a school in an area with a high immigrant population.
This is obviously a reference to the migration/refugee crisis that Europe finds itself in due to the conflicts in Iraq/Syria and Libya.
It is also a reference to the anti-migrant/refugee violence that has begun to emerge in Europe in response to the crisis.
In the former Soviet East Germany groups such as PEGIDA have been very active in staging sometimes violent anti-immigrant street protests including a protest marking the first anniversary of the group in Dresden on Monday (19/10/15). On Saturday (17/10/15) a pro-refugee Mayoral candidate was stabbed in Cologne by an assailant who is reported to have shouted anti-immigrant slogan. Fortunately she survived and went on to win the election.
These have simply been the headline grabbing incidents that have been part of a wave of low level attacks against refugees and facilities for refugees such as processing centres across numerous European nations. Just on Tuesday (20/10/15) Swedish authorities announced that they would be keeping secret the addresses of refugee housing units following 15 arson attacks against such locations this year.
Sweden actually has a very specific issue with refugees. Following the Balkan wars of the 1990's Sweden took in a lot of predominately Muslim refugees. Unfortunately it didn't do enough to integrate these newcomers instead leaving them to set up ghettos mainly in the Biskopsgarden area of Gothenburg. As often happens these ghettos have become havens for organised crime and this summer has seen a big gang war with tit-for-tat killings carried out with guns grenades and car bombings.
As a result during the negotiations over a European Union (EU) quota system lots of countries have expressed concern that it would lead to them experiencing the same problems as Sweden. Obviously though if they were to drop their opposition there could be an EU-wide discussion of the urban planning/human geography methods that can be employed to avoid Sweden's problems.
The use of the sword is a reference to the violence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and associated groups. After all when people talk about violent Jihad they often talk about "The Jihad of the Sword" and I think we're all familiar with ISIL's fondness of beheadings.
Due to its earlier failure to integrate Muslim immigrants Sweden has seen a relatively high proportion of its citizens travel to join ISIL. Although Sweden didn't seem particularly worried about them leaving like much of Europe it is now very worried about them returning - possibly disguised as refugees - in order to carry out terror attacks.
The fact a school was targeted is a reference to the school shootings in the US such as the Newtown massacre and the recent shooting at Umpqua Community College. US President Barack Obama has long tried to exploit these to further his own gun control agenda.
Sweden has much tighter gun control legislation but this seems to have done nothing to stem the gang violence in Sweden's ghettos. As such a sword attack on a school being stopped by guns seems to be a complete rejection of President Obama's leadership.
Coming in from Sweden this is very significant. Not only has Sweden provided many fighters to ISIL they have also been very active supporters of US sanctions against Russia over ISIL's Northern/Shamali Province - "Ukraine" if you still insist on using the Kuffar name.
This week also sees the October meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bonn, Germany. As I've mentioned before Obama's incompetence along with the threat of terrorism both against nations that might benefit from a new agreement and the Paris, France venue itself have long been used to unsettle negotiations where issues such as urban planning/human geography come up frequently.
Therefore I can't say that I'm particularly happy that Sweden have gone with such a dramatic move today. After all the hour I've spent writing this up is an hour that I could have spent on the climate change issue itself.
However I suppose you could argue that a sign that Obama's support is collapsing and being replaced by a united European front is reassuring.
It's also worth pointing out that today US Secretary of State John Kerry is in Germany to meet with EU, Palestinian and Israeli leaders to discuss the current violence in Jerusalem which is closely linked to ISIL even if no-one will admit it.
Tomorrow will see a poorly scheduled meeting between the US, the EU, Russia and Saudi Arabia on the conflict in Iraq/Syria.
14:10 on 22/10/15 (UK date).
In the last few moments the death toll has risen to two. This includes and adult teacher and a student aged around 16 years old. With one other student seriously injured this death toll could rise as high as three. The attacker was shot and seriously wounded by police at the scene.
Although it has not been confirmed the attack was initially described as being at a school for immigrants. However I suspect once the initial shock and translation issues have been worked through this means a school in an area with a high immigrant population.
This is obviously a reference to the migration/refugee crisis that Europe finds itself in due to the conflicts in Iraq/Syria and Libya.
It is also a reference to the anti-migrant/refugee violence that has begun to emerge in Europe in response to the crisis.
In the former Soviet East Germany groups such as PEGIDA have been very active in staging sometimes violent anti-immigrant street protests including a protest marking the first anniversary of the group in Dresden on Monday (19/10/15). On Saturday (17/10/15) a pro-refugee Mayoral candidate was stabbed in Cologne by an assailant who is reported to have shouted anti-immigrant slogan. Fortunately she survived and went on to win the election.
These have simply been the headline grabbing incidents that have been part of a wave of low level attacks against refugees and facilities for refugees such as processing centres across numerous European nations. Just on Tuesday (20/10/15) Swedish authorities announced that they would be keeping secret the addresses of refugee housing units following 15 arson attacks against such locations this year.
Sweden actually has a very specific issue with refugees. Following the Balkan wars of the 1990's Sweden took in a lot of predominately Muslim refugees. Unfortunately it didn't do enough to integrate these newcomers instead leaving them to set up ghettos mainly in the Biskopsgarden area of Gothenburg. As often happens these ghettos have become havens for organised crime and this summer has seen a big gang war with tit-for-tat killings carried out with guns grenades and car bombings.
As a result during the negotiations over a European Union (EU) quota system lots of countries have expressed concern that it would lead to them experiencing the same problems as Sweden. Obviously though if they were to drop their opposition there could be an EU-wide discussion of the urban planning/human geography methods that can be employed to avoid Sweden's problems.
The use of the sword is a reference to the violence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and associated groups. After all when people talk about violent Jihad they often talk about "The Jihad of the Sword" and I think we're all familiar with ISIL's fondness of beheadings.
Due to its earlier failure to integrate Muslim immigrants Sweden has seen a relatively high proportion of its citizens travel to join ISIL. Although Sweden didn't seem particularly worried about them leaving like much of Europe it is now very worried about them returning - possibly disguised as refugees - in order to carry out terror attacks.
The fact a school was targeted is a reference to the school shootings in the US such as the Newtown massacre and the recent shooting at Umpqua Community College. US President Barack Obama has long tried to exploit these to further his own gun control agenda.
Sweden has much tighter gun control legislation but this seems to have done nothing to stem the gang violence in Sweden's ghettos. As such a sword attack on a school being stopped by guns seems to be a complete rejection of President Obama's leadership.
Coming in from Sweden this is very significant. Not only has Sweden provided many fighters to ISIL they have also been very active supporters of US sanctions against Russia over ISIL's Northern/Shamali Province - "Ukraine" if you still insist on using the Kuffar name.
This week also sees the October meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bonn, Germany. As I've mentioned before Obama's incompetence along with the threat of terrorism both against nations that might benefit from a new agreement and the Paris, France venue itself have long been used to unsettle negotiations where issues such as urban planning/human geography come up frequently.
Therefore I can't say that I'm particularly happy that Sweden have gone with such a dramatic move today. After all the hour I've spent writing this up is an hour that I could have spent on the climate change issue itself.
However I suppose you could argue that a sign that Obama's support is collapsing and being replaced by a united European front is reassuring.
It's also worth pointing out that today US Secretary of State John Kerry is in Germany to meet with EU, Palestinian and Israeli leaders to discuss the current violence in Jerusalem which is closely linked to ISIL even if no-one will admit it.
Tomorrow will see a poorly scheduled meeting between the US, the EU, Russia and Saudi Arabia on the conflict in Iraq/Syria.
14:10 on 22/10/15 (UK date).
Tuesday, 20 October 2015
Operation Featherweight: Month 15, Week 4, Day 3.
Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are this week meeting at their Headquarters in Bonn, Germany. This will be the final such meeting prior to the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) in Paris, France on November 30th (30/11/15) where a replacement to the Kyoto Protocol is set to be signed.
As a result I really need to be focusing on that this week rather then providing comprehensive updates on the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and associated group. However there is one issue that seems to cut across both topics.
On Saturday (17/10/15) a British national - Jacqueline "Jacky" Sutton - was found dead in the toilets at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul, Turkey by two Russian nationals.
Ms Sutton was the Iraq director for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) a non-profit organisation that was founded in 1991 to provide balanced reporting from what was at the time Yugoslavia.
IWPR's current Chairman is Sir David Bell a former Chairman of the Financial Times newspaper and its members include Christiane Amanpour, CNN's Chief International correspondent, Christina Lamb, Chief International correspondent for the London Times newspaper and Anne Applebaum who sits on the board of the Washington Post. Ms Sutton herself has previously worked for both the BBC and the Economist newspaper.
Apparently all the CCTV cameras in the area of the airport where Ms Sutton died were either broken, switched off or the footage has disappeared. However the Turkish version of events is that Ms Sutton had missed her connecting flight to Erbil, Iraq where she was travelling to on IWPR business.
On being told that she would have to buy another ticket which she was apparently unable to afford Ms Sutton - as an experienced traveller both in and out of warzones - didn't think to contact her employer or even her friends or family to ask them to pay for the new ticket. Instead she went straight to the bathroom and hung herself with her boot-laces.
Curiously in footage from elsewhere in the airport Ms Sutton was not wearing boots - laced or otherwise.
Suspicions that Ms Sutton was murdered by agents of the Turkish state are strengthened by the fact that intimidation and violence against journalists has become all too common in Turkey. This is particularly true for journalists who produce facts that are critical of either Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan or his Justice and Development Party (AKP).
For example on October 3rd (3/10/15) twin suicide bombings struck a peace rally that was organised in part by the Turkish Kurdish Peoples Democratic Party (HDP) in Turkey's capital Ankara killing 102 people - mainly Kurds.
Turkey's first response to this was to ban the publication of any images of the scene of the bombing. This included not only the bombing itself and the aftermath but also images of the scene taken before the bombing. As a result even train spotter blogs containing photographs of Ankara train station were removed and 12 people were arrested for violating the ban.
That ban has only been lifted today (20/10/15) with the identification of Yunus Emre Alagoz as one of the Ankara bombers. Yunus Emre is the brother of Seyh Abdurrahman Alagoz who carried out the bombing of a rally by the youth wing of the HDP in Suruc on July 20th (20/7/15). It seems odd that in the mass security crackdown that followed Turkish authorities didn't get around to questioning the bomber's brother.
On September 8th (8/9/15) supporters of the AKP and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) went on the rampage in Ankara setting fire to the offices of the HDP and Hurriyet newspaper. On September 15th (15/9/15) this was followed up by a police raid on the Headquarters of the Dogan media group which published Hurriyet which AKP constantly accuse of being part of a conspiracy to overthrow Erdogan.
On October 1st (1/10/15) Hurriyet columnist and CNN Turkey host Ahmet Hakan was viciously assaulted by four men outside his home in Istanbul. Despite CCTV footage showing the attackers following Mr Hakan from the CNN Turk studios Turkish police remain adamant that it was just a random road rage attack.
Against this backdrop of violence against journalists the location of Ms Sutton's death - Ataturk Airport - could be viewed as significant. The airport is named after modern Turkey's founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk who established the nation's aggressively secular constitution.
The Kemalist Republican People's Party (CHP) are obviously very supportive of that constitution while members of Turkey's mythical "Deep State" including members of the MHP are sworn to uphold it at all costs. The AKP's attempts to change that constitution including by allowing Erdogan to rule as President have fuelled numerous rumours of a coup by the Deep State to protect the values of Ataturk.
As such in Turkey's conspiratorial politics there seems to have been a hope that Ms Sutton's death would be viewed as an attempt by the Deep State to reach out to the UK as part of the conspiracy to oust Erdogan. After all in the minds of the AKP the entire universe is one giant conspiracy to oust Erdogan.
Those who enjoy a good conspiracy theory are likely to be very interested in Ms Sutton's death because it seems like a plotline from the US TV spy Show "Homeland."
Specifically the plotline from season 4 of Homeland in which the Saul character is kidnapped from an airport by rogue members of the Pakistani intelligence services who conveniently switched off all the CCTV cameras.
Season 5 of Homeland is currently revealing its secrets but for the most part it is set in Berlin, Germany which has both large Turkish and Kurdish ex-pat communities. Episode 2 saw the main characters travel to a camp for Syrian refugees in Lebanon in what looks like being one of the seasons major themes.
Ms Sutton of course was very familiar with the Dohuk camp for Syrian refugees in Iraqi Kurdistan which Turkey keeps threatening to bomb.
In terms of the UNFCCC meeting whenever you have a political meeting of this type that brings together delegates from across the world - often including Heads of Government/State (HOGS) there is always a concern that there will be political violence.
For example six of the people killed aboard Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in July 2014 were on their way to the International AIDS Conference that was being held that year in Australia. There remains a persistent suspicion that MH17 was chosen specifically to kill those delegates.
This is also why the Shrien Dewani case became such a major international issue. That occurred in the host of COP17 just as delegates were arriving for COP16 in Cancun, Mexico where violence by the drugs cartels was a concern.
Although security plans are good and the risk is low COP Summits are incredibly stressful affairs. Once people start getting stressed and overtired paranoia start to creep in and that paranoia can be used to disrupt the summit.
For example at the extremely stressful COP18 Summit in Qatar there were a string of news stories about celebrities and scientists falling to their deaths in suspicious circumstances along with rumours that Yasser Arafat had been assassinated with Polonium like Russia dissident Alexander Litvinenko. These were all intended to make delegates extra nervous at a Summit where some were hoping the entire process would collapse.
One of the main reasons why Saudi Arabia conducted the 2015 Paris attacks was to show - weeks after COP20 - that it could and would attack the COP21 host nation to prevent an agreement being signed. As a result the security plan for COP21 is shaping up to be one of the most comprehensive ever.
By getting everyone gossipping about potential political assassinations Turkey seemed to be trying to ratchet up the tension even further.
17:40 on 20/10/15 (UK date).
As a result I really need to be focusing on that this week rather then providing comprehensive updates on the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and associated group. However there is one issue that seems to cut across both topics.
On Saturday (17/10/15) a British national - Jacqueline "Jacky" Sutton - was found dead in the toilets at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul, Turkey by two Russian nationals.
Ms Sutton was the Iraq director for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) a non-profit organisation that was founded in 1991 to provide balanced reporting from what was at the time Yugoslavia.
IWPR's current Chairman is Sir David Bell a former Chairman of the Financial Times newspaper and its members include Christiane Amanpour, CNN's Chief International correspondent, Christina Lamb, Chief International correspondent for the London Times newspaper and Anne Applebaum who sits on the board of the Washington Post. Ms Sutton herself has previously worked for both the BBC and the Economist newspaper.
Apparently all the CCTV cameras in the area of the airport where Ms Sutton died were either broken, switched off or the footage has disappeared. However the Turkish version of events is that Ms Sutton had missed her connecting flight to Erbil, Iraq where she was travelling to on IWPR business.
On being told that she would have to buy another ticket which she was apparently unable to afford Ms Sutton - as an experienced traveller both in and out of warzones - didn't think to contact her employer or even her friends or family to ask them to pay for the new ticket. Instead she went straight to the bathroom and hung herself with her boot-laces.
Curiously in footage from elsewhere in the airport Ms Sutton was not wearing boots - laced or otherwise.
Suspicions that Ms Sutton was murdered by agents of the Turkish state are strengthened by the fact that intimidation and violence against journalists has become all too common in Turkey. This is particularly true for journalists who produce facts that are critical of either Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan or his Justice and Development Party (AKP).
For example on October 3rd (3/10/15) twin suicide bombings struck a peace rally that was organised in part by the Turkish Kurdish Peoples Democratic Party (HDP) in Turkey's capital Ankara killing 102 people - mainly Kurds.
Turkey's first response to this was to ban the publication of any images of the scene of the bombing. This included not only the bombing itself and the aftermath but also images of the scene taken before the bombing. As a result even train spotter blogs containing photographs of Ankara train station were removed and 12 people were arrested for violating the ban.
That ban has only been lifted today (20/10/15) with the identification of Yunus Emre Alagoz as one of the Ankara bombers. Yunus Emre is the brother of Seyh Abdurrahman Alagoz who carried out the bombing of a rally by the youth wing of the HDP in Suruc on July 20th (20/7/15). It seems odd that in the mass security crackdown that followed Turkish authorities didn't get around to questioning the bomber's brother.
On September 8th (8/9/15) supporters of the AKP and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) went on the rampage in Ankara setting fire to the offices of the HDP and Hurriyet newspaper. On September 15th (15/9/15) this was followed up by a police raid on the Headquarters of the Dogan media group which published Hurriyet which AKP constantly accuse of being part of a conspiracy to overthrow Erdogan.
On October 1st (1/10/15) Hurriyet columnist and CNN Turkey host Ahmet Hakan was viciously assaulted by four men outside his home in Istanbul. Despite CCTV footage showing the attackers following Mr Hakan from the CNN Turk studios Turkish police remain adamant that it was just a random road rage attack.
Against this backdrop of violence against journalists the location of Ms Sutton's death - Ataturk Airport - could be viewed as significant. The airport is named after modern Turkey's founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk who established the nation's aggressively secular constitution.
The Kemalist Republican People's Party (CHP) are obviously very supportive of that constitution while members of Turkey's mythical "Deep State" including members of the MHP are sworn to uphold it at all costs. The AKP's attempts to change that constitution including by allowing Erdogan to rule as President have fuelled numerous rumours of a coup by the Deep State to protect the values of Ataturk.
As such in Turkey's conspiratorial politics there seems to have been a hope that Ms Sutton's death would be viewed as an attempt by the Deep State to reach out to the UK as part of the conspiracy to oust Erdogan. After all in the minds of the AKP the entire universe is one giant conspiracy to oust Erdogan.
Those who enjoy a good conspiracy theory are likely to be very interested in Ms Sutton's death because it seems like a plotline from the US TV spy Show "Homeland."
Specifically the plotline from season 4 of Homeland in which the Saul character is kidnapped from an airport by rogue members of the Pakistani intelligence services who conveniently switched off all the CCTV cameras.
Season 5 of Homeland is currently revealing its secrets but for the most part it is set in Berlin, Germany which has both large Turkish and Kurdish ex-pat communities. Episode 2 saw the main characters travel to a camp for Syrian refugees in Lebanon in what looks like being one of the seasons major themes.
Ms Sutton of course was very familiar with the Dohuk camp for Syrian refugees in Iraqi Kurdistan which Turkey keeps threatening to bomb.
In terms of the UNFCCC meeting whenever you have a political meeting of this type that brings together delegates from across the world - often including Heads of Government/State (HOGS) there is always a concern that there will be political violence.
For example six of the people killed aboard Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in July 2014 were on their way to the International AIDS Conference that was being held that year in Australia. There remains a persistent suspicion that MH17 was chosen specifically to kill those delegates.
This is also why the Shrien Dewani case became such a major international issue. That occurred in the host of COP17 just as delegates were arriving for COP16 in Cancun, Mexico where violence by the drugs cartels was a concern.
Although security plans are good and the risk is low COP Summits are incredibly stressful affairs. Once people start getting stressed and overtired paranoia start to creep in and that paranoia can be used to disrupt the summit.
For example at the extremely stressful COP18 Summit in Qatar there were a string of news stories about celebrities and scientists falling to their deaths in suspicious circumstances along with rumours that Yasser Arafat had been assassinated with Polonium like Russia dissident Alexander Litvinenko. These were all intended to make delegates extra nervous at a Summit where some were hoping the entire process would collapse.
One of the main reasons why Saudi Arabia conducted the 2015 Paris attacks was to show - weeks after COP20 - that it could and would attack the COP21 host nation to prevent an agreement being signed. As a result the security plan for COP21 is shaping up to be one of the most comprehensive ever.
By getting everyone gossipping about potential political assassinations Turkey seemed to be trying to ratchet up the tension even further.
17:40 on 20/10/15 (UK date).
Monday, 19 October 2015
ADP Ex Ante Review: My Thoughts
Back on September 24th (24/9/15) I
asked people to think about how the ex ante review process would function under
the agreement. Since then I have given the issue some thought and come up with
my answers to those questions;
I see the first stage
of the review process being the parties whose submissions are being reviewed
giving a presentation to the review group on their submission. After all it
seems to have been agreed that while there is to be an online register/library of
submissions this will simply provide an overview. The presentation will allow
nations to expand privately on detail they may wish to keep out of the public
domain.
Following the
presentations which hopefully would happen during the annual Conference of Parties
(COP) or at the first meeting following the COP each nation will go off and
write a report on the submissions they are to review. This report will focus on
the minimum criteria for submissions laid out in the appropriate technical
annex.
So for example if I
was reviewing the US' submission I would begin;
Type: Here I would
complement the US on submitting an absolute reduction target explaining that
seems appropriate for their status as a highly developed economy.
Scope: Here I would
complement the US on using the IPCC standard. However if I was reviewing a
nation that wasn't using the IPCC standard I would use this opportunity to
identify it as a weakness.
For example Morocco
doesn't intend to measure F-gases. As I've explained before I think this is a
problem because F-gases could be a growth area in Morocco's emissions so it is
important to establish what the current levels are.
Coverage: Again I
would complement the US' use of the IPCC standard. However if I was reviewing a
nation that used a different measure this is where I would express concern
along with a detailed explanation of my concerns.
Baseline: Here I
would express concern that the US is using 2005 as the baseline rather then the
more widely used 1990 standard. This obviously leads to some confusion when
comparing the US' submission to its peers.
Timeframe: Here I
would again express concern that the US is using a five year timeframe rather
then the 10 years mandated by the agreement. Not only does this make it more
difficult comparing the US to other submissions but it leaves a five year
period within the 10 year cycle were there is no indication that the US will be
taking any action. That is hardly fair nor ambitious.
Reduction: Here I
would have to look at what action the US has taken in the past, how it's
current action compares to others and if there is anything obvious the US could
do to make a bigger reduction.
Obviously I don't really have time to do that
now but I should point out that a critique of a reduction is not binding
forcing the nation to make changes. Instead it is to help the nation to make
further reductions which it may not have identified on its own.
Metric: Here I would
complement the US on using the standard IPCC metric because it increases
transparency and makes for easier comparison. If not I would include any strengths/weaknesses of the metric they were using
Methodology: Again
here I would complement the US for using the IPCC standard or offer an assesment of the method used.
Means of
Implementation: Here I would assess the mechanisms that a nation will use to
achieve it's reductions to determine if they are viable or not.
In the US example
every time they claim that they are going to use the Clean Air Act to regulate
emissions from power stations I would highlight the recent Supreme Court
rulings that have overturned attempts to use the Clean Air Act to limit
emissions.
I may then go onto suggest that the US made need to introduce new
legislation to achieve its targets. This would lead me to express concern over
the US' ability to introduce that legislation and suggest a public education
campaign to increase public support for such legislation.
Where the US claims
that it intendeds to use its existing framework to further reduce vehicle
emissions I would obviously highlight the recent Volkswagen scandal and express
concern that the US testing regime is not sufficient to enforce the existing
legislation. If I was an expert on the mechanics of vehicle emissions testing I
would use this opportunity to suggest improvements the US could make to its
regime.
As with all other
sections of the peer review the Means of Implementation is non-binding and a
forum for discussion. However I think it is amongst the most important sections
in terms of capacity building. After all no nations wants to sign up to a
target they know they can't meet and which will incur them a large fine.
Market Mechanism:
Here I would express disappointment that the US - as one of the World's most
capitalist economies - is not using market based mechanisms. In expressing this
disappointment I would highlight how market mechanism can bring great success
not only in reducing emissions but by generating income to assist other nations
in reducing emissions.
If the nation reviewed was intending to use market based mechanisms this is where I would
take a very close look at the type of mechanism it was and whether the
accountancy methods used were rigorous enough to avoid fraud double counting
and whether they were compatible with the mechanisms used by other nations.
Conditional/Additional:
Here I would again express disappointment that by failing to include an additional
portion the US had given no consideration to how it can bring down global
emissions at relatively low cost by assisting less developed nations.
Percentage of
Emissions Covered: Here I would complement the US on covering 100% of its
emissions because it aids with transparency and comparison. However on a more
complicated submission such as Ethiopia's which is using an intensity measure I would look
assess how accurate their calculations are.
Adaptation: Here I
would criticise the US for failing to provide any information on its adaptation
actions and in doing so showing a blatant disregard for the need to build
capacity though the sharing of professional expertise.
However if an
adaptation section had been included I would do a quick assessment of how
viable and cost-effective the proposed actions were along with the nation's
ability to deliver them in terms to cost, expertise etc.
Emissions Pathway:
Here I would criticise the US for not including an emissions pathway that
shows it is committed to the overall goal of the agreement and how this
submission contributes to that goal.
Obviously though if
the US had included a pathway I would assess how accurate their calculations
are and give and opinion as to whether this individual submission was fair and
ambitious in terms of meeting that pathway or if the US is leaving itself far
too much work to do in later rounds of submissions.
Once each nation has
produced its own report on all the submissions before the group I think they
should give that report to each other member of the group. The group will then
work together to produce a synthesis report.
I think this process
is vital for capacity building because it allows each nation in the group to
learn from each other.
Once the synthesis
report has been prepared it is sent along with the individual reports to the
submitting nation. Having considered the reports the submitting nation can then
decide to make changes to its submission before it is formalised.
I appreciate that
getting nations to agree on a synthesis report can be extremely difficult, time
consuming and sometimes impossible. Therefore while I think it should be
deterred it should be possible for the process to continue without a synthesis
report with the submitter nation having to make do with just the individual
reports.
Due to nations having
to prepare multiple reports and then develop multiple synthesised reports I
think it would be better to have a large
number of small working groups. Based on 160 participants I'm thinking in terms
between of 32 groups of 5 and 20 groups of 8.
In terms of the
membership of each group I think that for the purposes of capacity building the
groups do need to represent the different groups within the convention such as
the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), Least Developed Countries (LDC's) etc.
However I think it is best for them to be randomly assigned from within each
sub-category.
This can function
rather like the draw for a sporting competition such as a football world cup.
You start by randomly assigning say a former Annex I party to a group then you
randomly assign a SIDS to the same group followed by a LDC. The process
continues until each group has one of each of the sub-categories. Any nations
that are unassigned at that point are then put into a general draw with say
China having the same chance of being drawn to a group as say Barbados.
I don't think there
is any need for there to be a wider geo-political weighting to how group
membership is assigned. However I think there should be a mechanism to allow a
country to ask to withdraw from a particular group upon presenting a valid
reason - such as being at war with another member of their group - to the
Secretariat who will make the final decision.
In terms of how each
submission is assigned to a group I'm perfectly happy with it being almost
completely random. However I do think there should be a mix of absolute and
intensity reductions in each group.
Therefore you would divide the submissions
to be randomly assigned to groups with each group getting an absolute
submission followed by an intensity submission. If you run out of one or the
other - as hopefully we will do with intensity submissions - you just carrying
on randomly assigning the remaining submissions.
Obviously there needs
to be a rule that no group can review the submission of one of its members.
However this is simply solved by assigning the submission to the next group
along the line and drawing another submission.
Beyond the peer review
process I think the Secretariat should be able to randomly select submissions
for it to review. I really think it is up to the Secretariat to decide whether
it wishes to exercise this privilege. Nations should also be able to request a
review by the Secretariat.
With none of these
reviews being binding it doesn't really matter if an individual report, a
synthesised report or a Secretariat report differ. In fact it is likely improve
capacity building by encouraging discussion and debate over the differing
perspectives.
When it comes to the
issue of timeframes I'm at a bit of a disadvantage because not participating in
the ex ante review I won't be doing the work which makes it quite difficult for
me to dictate how long the work will take.
However I can see the
task being completed in 15 months with the assigning of the groups taking place
at the third quarter meeting just before the COP. The presentations can then
take place at the COP with the individual reports being presented at the first
quarter meeting following the COP. The synthesised reports that then be
presented at the second quarter meeting leaving the submitting nation 6 months
to make any changes.
Obviously due to time
pressure any changes can't be fully peer reviewed but applications could be made to
the Secretariat for individual review.
At this point I am
tempted to make the assigning of the groups and submissions into a World Cup or
Hunger Games style event. Although it's unlikely to get much conventional TV
coverage a webcast could be a way to build expectation ahead of the COP.
To aid with the
development of the preperation of the next round of submissions I think there
needs to be an ex post review process at the five year mark. Obviously for that
to pheaseable there needs to be 10 year commitment periods which is really the
right length of time to implement an idea and assess its progress while
allowing ambition to grow at regular intervals.
I think the groups used for the ex post review should be the same groups used for the ex ante review. Obviously not having to assign new groups saves time and allows nations to spend more time concentrating on actual climate change.
However much of the
ex ante review will be based on guess work and prediction. Bringing the
submissions back to the same group after five years not only allows the
submissions to be assesed but also the performance of the original reviewers.
Obviously no-one likes having their mistakes pointed out to the but I think the
professional people involved in the process understand that it's not possible
to improve by pretending that everything is fine and you're absolutely
brilliant at everything.
As such going back to
the same groups for the ex post review will help with capacity building by
forcing the reviewers to examine whether their methods have been successful or
not.
In terms of translating this idea into actual language of an argeement I have to say that after a quick skim read there still isn't a section dealing with the review process in the latest non-paper. I have say though that I am reassured that it's been reduced from close to 90 pages down to just 20.
20:35 on 19/10/15 (UK date).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
