| Sourced From |
The COP16 meeting in Cancun has been deemed a ‘technical success’ by market participants, but expectations were far lower in comparison to Copenhagen. Katie Holliday investigates
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s COP16 meeting in Cancun saw governments agreeing a series of measures including setting-up a new fund to help oversee $100 billion in annual aid to developing nations from 2020 and a mechanism to slow deforestation and help poor countries adapt to the impacts of climate change.
The agreements made at Cancun in December build upon elements of the non-binding Copenhagen Accord, agreed among 140 nations in 2009, into a wider UN deal. However, calls by small island states, which fear they will be washed off the map by rising sea levels, to set a deadline for a global treaty when environment ministers meet in Durban, South Africa, in a year’s time (end November-December 2011), were rejected at the conference.
“Cancun was meant to be a lower key, technical meeting in comparison to Copenhagen, so you could argue that in that respect it was a success,” says Trevor Morgan, managing director of Paris-based consultancy Menecon Consulting and formerly senior economist at the International Energy Agency. “If you measure it against expectations it was a success but against the action that is really required to achieve a global climate change deal then no it wasn’t,” he adds.
“Everything achieved at Cancun, was useful – the nitty-gritty issues have been solved, all necessary but unfortunately not sufficient,” says Emmanuel Fages, head of carbon at carbon origination company Orbeo. “We have not moved forward on the main questions that could obstruct a main agreement, such as what is the burden, what are the targets and new mechanisms, what are the verification processes. [These questions] were not addressed,” he says.
The consensus among climate change scientists is that temperatures need to be limited to a rise of two degrees Celsius per year to avert dangerous levels of global warming. But limited progress towards a global treaty, involving the mandatory commitments of nations to emissions reduction cuts, is making this target seem less realistic. Cancun was not expected to be the forum for any solid action on reaching this target, but some critics have highlighted how the UN discussions are appearing less and less effective.
“If I was to be very negative, I would say it might have been better if Cancun had been a complete failure then at least we would be rid of this UN process. As essentially it is one more year lost,” says Fages. “There is value in that it is a small step towards something meaningful in 10 years’ time. That is what these UN talks are likely to produce, either a long process to something meaningful, or a short process to something more fake,” he adds.
However, Menecon’s Morgan believes progress in Cancun has put UN negotiations back on track after Copenhagen: “The agreements that were made reassured people that the process was still working. If we are going to achieve that two-degree goal, the question is, are we any closer to achieving that as a result of Cancun? You could nonetheless say we are – because the process moves forward, which gives us some hope that we will be able to reach an agreement on carbon pricing and a carbon trading mechanism,” he adds.
Some analysts argue that a better alternative to the UN discussions would be if the responsibility of deciding on global climate change policy was discussed in a G8 or at the Major Economies Forum (MEF) format.
“The best way would be for 10 heads of state to come together for three days and just talk about climate change. You cannot separate the climate discussion from the currency discussion so this would be the right people and place to continue the UN process,” says Orbeo’s Fages.
Analysts say the key challenge affecting progress towards a global climate change treaty is the failure of carbon intensive heavyweights, such as China or the US, to agree to binding cuts. If they were to, many other countries would be willing to do the same.
Japan, for instance, is offering a 25% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2020, as part of a future deal involving ambitious targets by all major economies including China or India.
But without participation on the part of the US, analysts argue that next year’s talks in South Africa are doomed from the outset. The US refused to sign the 1997 Kyoto Protocol or adopt any legislated domestic emission reduction strategies. President Obama’s original pledges to keep climate change at the top of the agenda after his election have been sidelined by opposition from the Senate.
“On the climate change front, the US has never been as far away from progress as they are now,” says Fages.
“I’m not too hopeful for South Africa, we’re more likely to finally reach a deal in 2012 rather than 2011,” adds Menecon’s Morgan.