WalesHome.org

Dai the Dragon, Wales' emblem at Copenhagen during the Wave at Westminster this weekend

TODAY is International Human Rights Day. It is a day when the world community marks the adoption of the UN Universal Declaration of the same name. 71 years later, and world leaders are gathered in Copenhagen. Their mission is no less historic, and no less connected to that event. By failing to tackle climate change with urgency, rich countries are effectively violating the human rights of millions of the world’s poorest people. Continued excessive greenhouse-gas emissions primarily from industrialized nations are – with scientific certainty – creating floods, droughts, hurricanes, sea-level rise, and seasonal unpredictability. The result is failed harvests, disappearing islands, destroyed homes, water scarcity, and deepening health crises, which are undermining millions of people’s rights to life, security, food, water, health, shelter, and culture. Such rights violations could never truly be remedied in courts of law.

This demand for climate justice echoed through the streets of London on Saturday as The Wave of fifty thousand people encircled the Houses of Parliament calling for action on climate change. Gordon Brown acknowledged that this demonstration was a clear mandate from the peoples of Britain that the UK delegation going to Copenhagen for the UN Summit must push for a fair, ambitious and binding deal.

And then came the leak. The Danish draft agreement, leaked on Tuesday, has already cast a shadow over the genuine intentions of the richest countries at the Summit and threatened to thwart any hope of a truly equitable deal. But there is a sliver of a silver lining – the temperature of the debate, what’s at stake and the campaigners’ determination has been raised.

As the talks gain momentum and the big players put forward their proposals for the deal it is vitally important that vulnerable countries are part of the debate. If the interests of the EU and US are paramount in developing a deal then the world’s most vulnerable countries are at risk of been squeezed out of the climate talks in Copenhagen. The Danes did consult a number of developing countries in the evolution of their proposal, but the lack of transparency and the bias towards the US and EU positions has contributed to deep concerns. It has heightened a lack of trust in the process and the role of the Presidency. The Danish Presidency, and particularly Lars Løkke Rasmussen the Prime Minister, needs to work hard to restore this trust.

They urgently need to be clear about the next steps needs to restore a sense of transparency. This will help ensure the voices of the countries that are most vulnerable to climate change are taken into account, rather than delivering results biased towards the countries that caused the problem. Otherwise, we could see a repeat performance of what happened at the pre-summit talks in Barcelona just a few weeks ago when the G77 (the group representing the world’s poorest countries) walked out of the negotiations.

Transparency means clarifying how they will go about changing the draft. It also means being clear that they are not undermining the ongoing negotiations. A preview of this draft agreement has also ensured that we, as campaigners, can spot the particular weaknesses on crunch issues. So what’s in the draft and wrong with it?

First, we need to see a legally binding agreement for emissions reductions. The leaked Danish draft proposes a low level of ambition for emissions reductions by rich nations and wants developing countries to take more of a burden. This makes an absolute mockery of the commitment that world leaders have made to the scientific argument for a need for drastic cuts. There will be no chance of sticking to the 2°C rise in temperature that is widely accepted as what must happen in order to avoid catastrophic global warming, which will have tragic and devastating impact on the poorest people.

Financing for tackling climate change in poor countries can make or break the Copenhagen agreement and as EU Environment Commissioner Stravos Dimas said at the beginning of 2009, “No money, no deal”. Climate finance is needed in poor countries for two purposes: mitigation and adaptation. An example of mitigation is support low carbon development such as the extra cost of investing a new wind farm over a new coal-fired power plant. Adaptation financing is needed to help countries adjust to the disastrous impacts, such as by raising homes above flood levels. In line with the World Bank, Oxfam estimates that $100bn is needed for adaptation. Oxfam also wants to see another $100bn for mitigation. This is entirely affordable and pales into insignifigance compared to the costs of inaction. And compared to the bankers bailout… The draft makes little mention of long term finance, where the money will come from or how much.

There are however some positive noises coming out of current Copenhagen negotiations regarding the management of the finance. Climate finance flows must be reliable and predictable so that poor countries can put in place long term plans. It should also be managed by a new fund under the UN climate convention, which can guarantee money will flow according to need, not the political preferences of rich countries. Talk of equitable governance and direct access for developing countries is being heard.

It was very worrying to see that there are no social safeguards in the section on deforestation or controls on the conversion of old growth forests to plantations – people in communities that rely on forests for their livelihoods need to be given full protection.

To top it all off none of the elements are proposed to be legally binding, and so in short make no assurance that they will be implemented. This flawed process is an important reminder that time is running out and the Danes are preparing a fall back plan, which in its current form is a recipe for disaster. It must act as a wakeup call to negotiators to move ahead with far more urgency. It is time for delegates, particularly those from the rich countries, to listen, to negotiate and not just repeat the same old positions.

On the upside there is some strong talk on gender equality and climate change. Women make up an estimated 70 percent of those living below the poverty line and are most likely to bear the heaviest burdens when a natural disaster strikes. Women are the linchpins of societies and largely define the community’s ability to adapt or recover from disaster. With this in mind it is vital that the agreement that comes out of Copenhagen recognises the role women can play to help adapt and mitigate the challenges of climate change.

But there’s more going on. EU heads of state and government are meeting today in Brussels to hammer out final details of their position. Finance has emerged as one of the key obstacles in the negotiations. It’s a stand-off between those large developing economies like Brazil and India taking action on climate change that would derail their own economic growth, and richer nations not willing to stump up enough cash for them to do so. Big developing countries, such as China, have signaled that they are willing to increase – and formalize – already significant pledges to reduce emissions if rich countries provide the necessary support. It’s rumoured that the European Union is preparing just a token handout for climate action in poor countries for the next three years, with no guarantee that this money is going to come on top of existing aid commitments.

A key question facing EU leaders will be whether to move forward on financing by putting a concrete sum on the table for the money it will provide up to 2020. At the end of October, the EU said €22-50bn would be needed in public financing for poor countries, and offered to pay its fair share, but stopped short of saying how much.

The EU has the potential to propel negotiations forward by putting 35 billion euros (50 billion dollars) per year from 2013 on the table to help developing countries cope with global warming in the long run. This money must come on top of existing commitments made by rich countries to provide 0.7% of national income for development aid. Rich countries must not force poor people to choose between building flood shelters or hospitals.

EU leaders can set the pace of negotiations in Copenhagen with their decisions on financing. Putting a concrete sum for the EU’s fair share of the long-term finance needed, and guaranteeing that this won’t just re-brand existing commitments, could be a game-changer. It is time the EU stepped out of the north American shadows and reclaimed international leadership on tackling climate change.