The next United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of Parties (COP) in Durban, South Africa may be many months away, but last week provided a glimpse into what may be expected.
The first meeting of the UNFCCC this year wrapped up in Bangkok, and while there was hope coming into the conference that agreements on an agenda could be reached, the bickering from COPs past re-emerged.
The same arguments were re-hashed.
Before Cancun--and even after-–everyone seemed to be on the same page about how things were to proceed in the UNFCCC process. The main issue that was agreed upon was to not tackle everything at once for a comprehensive agreement like the one that was attempted in Copenhagen in 2009. A building block approach was decided upon and because of that, there was some progress on certain issues like climate finance and technology transfer in Cancun.
However, it seems as though the conference in Bangkok was one step forward, two steps backward.
As we have said throughout the week, developing countries wanted to focus on the future of the Kyoto Protocol, while developed countries wanted to progress on the agreements made in Cancun.
United States climate envoy Todd Stern made the controversial comment that he didn’t think “it’s necessary that there be internationally binding emission caps as long as you’ve got national laws and regulations. What I am saying is it’s not doable.”
Weathervane and others have been talking and writing about this for some time –that climate change needs to be dealt with on multiple levels and in multiple forums. Still, this comment made in New York seemed to stir up the conference in Bangkok and held the attention of many delegates and the media.
This is all background noise to the real issue. Can the arguments regarding what needs to be discussed be settled before Durban?
All can agree that the next version of a Kyoto-type-Protocol will take some time. U.S. deputy climate envoy Jonathan Pershing talked about a symmetrical approach, where the U.S. and China (although China was never mentioned) have similar responsibilities. The U.S. doesn’t seem willing to budge on this issue. And the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in Congress will most certainly not sign off on a treaty where China doesn’t have similar responsibilities.
So, while those issues are being ironed out, the meetings in Bangkok should have continued where Cancun left off. If time is spent building upon the small agreements, it may be easier to agree on a larger deal.
But now, everything is back on the table again. Don’t forget to throw in issues that weren’t discussed from the Bali Road Map too. Everyone has different priorities for the agenda of the UNFCCC, but instead of talking about literally everything, delegates should realize that tackling the low-hanging fruit can then be followed by the outstanding issues, such as legal form and measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV).
On the road to Durban, the next stop is Bonn, Germany in June. As Stern said, there are other forums to discuss climate change in the meantime, so progress is coming, but only once the delegates start to think in a streamlined approach.
