COP25: Negotiating marathon smelling of disappointment

This is the summit without height. Long faces, empty corridors, heads of delegation packing their bags without finishing the conference, expressions of disappointment, irritation of social organizations. But above all, if there have already been leaks of delegates before the conclusion of the “event”, it is not only for fear of losing the plane, but because they surely guess that, in the end, there would not be much to celebrate.

This is not the time for epic. Madrid has not been Paris.

After two intense weeks of negotiation, delegations from almost 200 countries present at the Madrid climate conference expressed their displeasure on Saturday afternoon at the complete disagreement that prevailed between the different groups of countries.

The conference was due to conclude on Friday but on Saturday the lack of consensus drought was resounding.

COP25 could last until late Saturday; who knows if until Sunday.

A blow to the somewhat exaggerated expectations created by some.

The conference is far from responding to the demands of scientists and society

It is always very risky to use words of thick caliber, but in this case one can speak of a failed summit: at least the attempt to rise to the occasion has failed.

The results of the conference will be a far cry from the demands of scientists calling for urgent action to stop rising temperatures with catastrophic effects. Meanwhile, social organizations have been asking for action to be taken in fair correspondence with this demand.

A UN report insisted that to avoid a rise in temperatures above 2º, it would be necessary to reduce CO2 emissions by 7.6% per year, every year from next year until 2030, which would require an unprecedented transformation of the world economy.

At the current rate, thermometers could rise up to 4 or 5°C by the end of the century compared to the pre-industrial era. Even if the (insufficient) promises of Paris were fulfilled, the planet is on track to be 3º hotter than in pre-industrial times.

The proposals of greater ambition collide with a wall of immobility

But the pressure of the Alliance for Climate Ambition has hit a wall of immobility. The large emitting countries (including China, India, Brazil…) have flatly refused to update upwards the national climate action plans (already promised in Paris in 2015) to be presented next year (Glasgow, 2020).

Increasing this climate ambition has been the EU’s great workhorse but the request has not gained receptivity. The second issue of discord is the definition of the rules of future carbon markets.

China, China and Brazil want all emission reduction certificates (CERs) generated from the Kyoto protocol to be transferred to the new stage of the Paris agreement. (Obtained from clean development projects, such as investments in renewable energy facilities, modernization in industrial plants or restoration in forest areas). These countries want these rights to be carried over without any control or restrictions on the new stage opened by the Paris agreement.

Perverse effects

Two risks: that there is a double accounting of reductions and that the market is flooded with low-priced credits

But that entails two risks: that there is a double accounting of emission reductions (one in the country of destination and another in the country of origin of the transfer) and that the market is flooded by low-priced credits … with very pernicious effects. It would be a stimulus for companies to prefer to go to the market to buy rights at a low price instead of applying their own decarbonization measures.

“These reductions cannot be computed in two places,” says Teresa Riba, the acting minister. “There are countries that see this more lightly and others that want to be very strict, because if not, the credibility of these rights or units and even of the system itself would collapse,” adds Ribera.

The EU invokes the need to preserve “environmental integrity”, slang that expresses the fear that all this will not lead to real and concrete benefits. And he has repeated by active and passive that “it is preferable that there is no agreement than that there is a bad agreement”

Negotiations all Saturday, from dawn

Negotiations to reach an agreement at the Madrid summit dragged on throughout Saturday with no sign of consensus.

COP25 was supposed to serve to give a boost to climate ambition (at least, that was the terminology repeatedly used by the Chilean presidency), but as the negotiations progressed the fear spread that we are actually in a stalemate or even a regression in the development and implementation of the Paris agreement.

No consensus on essential chapters

Consensus did not make its way into the proposed documents, into any of the momentous chapters: future ambition in terms of gas reduction, financing from the countries of the South and, above all, the rules for the functioning of international carbon markets. “It was the COP of ambition, but we don’t see it anywhere,” criticized Carlos Fuller, a delegate from Belize speaking on behalf of the group of island states, which expressed their discontent.

That discontent was expressed in clear frustration and resounding disappointment in the mouths of the social organizations participating in the summit as observers.

Union of Concerned Scientists

The proposal “strikes us as unacceptable,” says Alden Meyer

“The latest version of the proposal presented by the presidency seems to us completely unacceptable. It does not call for an increase in the ambition of countries to improve their emission reduction plans,” said Alden Meyer, chief strategist at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“If world leaders fail to raise climate ambition at the next COP26 in Glasgow, the target agreed in Paris to stop temperatures rising below 2°C, let alone the 1.5°C target, will be almost impossible to achieve,” he added.

“The planet is burning and it is becoming more and more difficult to reach the escape window,” he said.

The draft agreement presented by Chile “is of the lowest, most unjust and immoral level. Leaders need to respond to the call of youth, indigenous people and vulnerable countries,” Meyer added.

Jennifer Morgan, executive director of Greenpeace International, was also very harsh, who directly accused the presidency of Chile.

Jennifer Morgan (Greenpeace)

To adopt that agreement would be a betrayal of the people who are asking for action now.”

“The text is a disgrace. To adopt it would be a betrayal of the people it is asking to act now. The COP presidency had only one job to do, to protect the integrity of the Paris agreement and not allow greed and cynicism to tear it apart,” he said angrily.

The approach he has printed shows “that he has listened to the private interests of the polluting companies more than the people.” For this reason, he asked the presidency to stand firm against the United States, Brazil and Japan, countries he accused of “wanting to destroy the negotiations, supporting a scam in the trafficking of emissions that puts a price on the environment and human rights.”

These three countries are in favour of a functioning of carbon markets with less robust rules, which arouses the wrath of social organizations and the clear rejection of the EU.

Faced with the angry responses of repudiation of the draft agreement, the Presidency of Chile presented a second document to be discussed with the different delegations.

Chile submits a second draft

Meanwhile a group of 28 countries led by Costa Rica have come together during negotiations to incorporate the so-called San José Principles, to ensure that carbon markets are truly fair and robust.

In this initiative are, in addition to Spain, Switzerland, Belize, Colombia, Paraguay, Peru, Marshall Islands or Vanuatu.

The San José principles include eleven conditions ranging from ensuring environmental integrity to avoiding double counting, vetoing the transfer of credits prior to 2020 to the new system or blocking technologies incompatible with the reduction of emissions

The Chilean facilitator, Andrés Landerretche (coordinator of the COP presidency), promised that the document would have greater ambition, although he did not give details on how this statement would be concretized. “We will try to improve the text, but this will depend on the parties. We are only bridges, facilitators or articulators of the agreement, but if there is no consensus there is no consensus,” he said with a certain air of dejection.

The second draft agreement, awaited

Once a second draft has been prepared, this document will be submitted to plenary where everything could happen, given the existing divergences.

“Can we say that this will end up like the rosary of an aurora?, – asked a journalist with Landerretche derision.

-I cannot assess something that has not been agreed. We will only evaluate the final document when it is firm,” replied a seasoned diplomat pulling a manual.

Shortly afterwards the plenary session was postponed again.

More arguments for those who like to predict failures.

Source: The Vanguard