Thursday, 01 March 2012 20:23

The Durban Summit: Consequences for Latin America

 

1. What do you think in general terms about the agreement (the Durban Platform) to develop (by 2015) a new protocol, or another legally binding instrument for reducing emissions, to be implemented from 2020?

Argentina flagArgentina: A new protocol or another legally binding instrument including all the developing countries would impose the need to develop an internal articulation for reaching a consensus between the different sectors about the best way forward with respect to the national economic and social development plans, in order to achieve the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as a contribution to the international effort, while taking account of the principle of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR). This process of structural development has already been initiated within the framework of the national strategy on climate change. However, if there is an international framework the efforts would have to be adapted to the standards agreed under the Convention.

Colombia flagColombia: The agreement is a step forward towards the achievement of a legally binding agreement covering all the countries that are parties to the Convention. This has always been Colombia’s goal, and in this sense, the agreement is a positive step forward. The immediate consequence is the start of a difficult period of negotiation to reach this goal. If such an agreement is reached, in the long term Colombia would aim for the implementation of a system of rules to combat climate change at a global level, with the country’s adaptation and mitigation requirements assisted by a multilateral regime.

Ecuador flagEcuador: Ecuador’s current and historical emissions are marginal, so we would want to see guarantees that the principle of common but differentiated responsibility is respected.

El-Salvador flagEl Salvador: In general it is an outcome that will contribute to the stabilisation of the levels of greenhouse gas emissions. It is true that to a certain extent, it alters the historical responsibility of developed countries with respect to the phenomenon; this represents a failure of common but differentiated responsibility, which would have to be compensated by the funding mechanism. The result makes the country responsible for promoting mitigation measures that little by little lead to the establishment of a low carbon economy.

Honduras flagHonduras: Actions based on the Bali Action Plan must continue to be supported. A second commitment period would mean a greater commitment on the part of all countries to reduce the effects of climate change.

Nicaragua flagNicaragua: The agreement does not explicitly include commitments by the main emitters, and it is not at all ambitious with respect to the size of the problem. This means it will be impossible to meet the target of reducing gases and stabilising the temperature at 2 OC. The new protocol does not respect the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, because developing countries are included as parties to the commitments to mitigation. A road map has also been defined to prepare the commitments. This should be adopted in 2015 and enter into force in 2020, meaning that we would have a period of time without any commitments in force, e.g. 2012-2015, 2015-2020.

Paraguay flagParaguay: Depending on the degree of optimism with which it is viewed, Durban may be considered a small step forward or a failure. In general, the Durban Platform is favourable because it allows us to nurture hopes to positively redirect the fight against climate change. However, the lack of definition in the Package, with decisions that have a broadly uncertain content, means that it is not possible to clearly see what the medium and long-term effects will be. It also leaves open the possibility that the future mechanism with legally binding results will be even weaker than the Kyoto Protocol. It may definitely be considered not to have met expectations fully. The consequences for Paraguay are that because of the vagueness regarding the future of the Convention in general it will mean the maintenance of the status quo until Doha, and there can be no hope of any ambitious progress being made.

2. What do you think about the Green Climate Fund (GCF)?

Argentina flagArgentina: It is an important step forward in funding climate change mitigation and adaptation measures. This is particularly true for Argentina, as it is a middle income country, and will not be one of the priority recipients of funding. Nevertheless, the existence of the Fund will generate a new phase in terms of mobilising funding, from which all developing countries will benefit.

Colombia flagColombia: The GCF is a key element in the international architecture of climate change and should serve to channel resources efficiently into financial assistance for climate change in the long term in countries such as Colombia. Putting it into operation is undoubtedly among the positive elements in the results of Durban. For Colombia, however, there is still nothing clear about what the long-term sources of finance for the Fund’s operation will be. Without clarity in this respect the GCF will remain at the level of good intentions.

Ecuador flagEcuador: It is an opportunity to finance the fight against climate change at a global level, provided that the “promises” of funding become a reality. We consider it important that the World Bank is only a Trustee of the Fund temporarily and that there will later be a process of inclusive international selection.

El-Salvador flagEl Salvador: It is good news for everyone. As a country, we will be able to consider a better mechanism for boosting investment in our process of adapting or in our capacity to adapt. The creation and development of this financial mechanism is extremely important and necessary for the country. Although in principle it will be a mechanism balanced between mitigation and adaptation, we would want adaptation to be one of the main components eligible for funding.

Honduras flagHonduras: Access to the funds is vital for the country, as it will provide financial resources for executing national policies, plans and programmes focused on increasing the country’s resilience.

Nicaragua flagNicaragua: The programmed funds of USD $100 billion a year to finance the climate are very limited in terms of demand by countries and the size of the problem. The full costs of adaptation, remediation and restoration will not be able to be funded. The intermediation by the World Bank or GEF (using the legal figure of the World Bank) will mean a lack of transparency and create bureaucracy in assigning resources and intermediation, leading to high costs for our countries. Our position is that a new mechanism for implementation should be created under the framework convention.

In addition, the emphasis given to African countries and islands leaves the vulnerable Latin American countries, particularly those in Central America, at a disadvantage in terms of budget allocation.

At the same time, although the sum of USD $100 billion per year was defined for financing the climate, there is no clarity about the commitments for each country and it will not be up and running until 2020. It is obvious that there is no feeling of urgency on the part of the developed countries.

As a member of the interim committee for preparing the Green Fund (2011), Nicaragua proposed using the same means with which the IMF resolved the financial crisis of the banks in one week: “Special Drawing Rights (SDR)”. If the climate is an urgent issue that is linked to our survival, SDR should also be used for the swift resolution of the financing of the Green Fund.

Paraguay flagParaguay: The good thing about the Green Fund is that it has created an institutional architecture that until now was only embryonic. The World Bank has been identified as a key player. The 100 billion are only a promise and will not be provided by the developed countries. Thus the money will come from a carbon market that has collapsed, from private investment, loans that will have to be repaid, and from the developing countries themselves. Even so, it can be considered that significant progress has been made on this matter.

3. What do you think of the extension of the Kyoto Protocol?

Argentina flagArgentina: As it is the only existing legal instrument for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the Kyoto Protocol is key to trying to limit the increase in global temperatures. It will have a major impact on all countries, in particular developing ones. At the same time, depending on the situation of the carbon markets (and their contribution to the adaptation fund), it is important to send a positive signal that allows the trading of carbon credits: if there are no agreements projects in the process of elaboration will lose their validity, impacting the fight against climate change.

Colombia flagColombia: The second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol is one of the goals of Colombia and Latin America, and a significant achievement of Durban. However, the extension of the commitments through this instrument is not enough. It must give way in the short term to a regime that includes all the countries that are parties thereto. If not, Kyoto by itself will be incapable of producing the results needed to avoid catastrophic consequences for Colombia and the region as a whole.

Ecuador flagEcuador: Despite the agreement on the Second Commitment Period of the Protocol, we consider that the environmental integrity of the planet is under threat, as the fundamentals of this instrument have been lost. We believe that the only thing worth saving is the continuity of the Mechanism for Clean Development.

El-Salvador flagEl Salvador: The news was expected and there has been a concerted effort to achieve this result. For this country it is basic for financing through the Clean Development Mechanisms, which in turn finances the Adaptation Fund.

Honduras flagHonduras: There have to be negotiations not only about the second period but also those following it to guarantee that the global temperature does not rise more than 1.5 degrees centigrade, which would be fatal for the most vulnerable ecosystems and societies.

Nicaragua flagNicaragua: The extension of the Kyoto Protocol through a road map does not reflect the urgency of the climate risks expressed in the IPCC’s Report 4, or the origins of the emissions in developed countries. This is particularly true since Canada, the USA, Russia and Japan have decided not to endorse the Kyoto Protocol.

The extension is not just: it frees developed countries from binding and ambitious commitments, and leaves to one side the basic principles of common but differentiated responsibility.

Paraguay flagParaguay: The promises of reducing greenhouse gases for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, now with the unambiguous absence of the United States, Canada, Japan, Russia, Australia and New Zealand, represent less than half of what is needed to maintain the increase in temperature at under 2 OC. The second period of the Kyoto Protocol will be adopted just after COP18. There is also a lack of definition regarding whether the second period of the Kyoto Protocol will be for 5 or 8 years.

This decision therefore only partially satisfies what was established in Paraguay’s National Position, because although it is true that Durban did not represent the end of the Protocol, it will also not continue under the expected conditions.

4. What do you think about other key aspects of the Durban Package (such as the Adaptation Committee, the Technology Mechanism, the ad-hoc Working Group, etc.)?

Argentina flagArgentina: The framework of adaptation, with all its elements (the Committee, the NAPs, the Loss and Damage programme, etc.) represents great progress in positioning how adaptation is tackled within the framework of the Convention. This will make a big contribution towards progress in a holistic approach to the processes of adaptation, at both a local and international level. With the progress made in technology (Committee and Mechanism), tackling climate change has taken on a new dimension, since as it cannot limit the increase of temperature to less than 2 OC, the technology transfer processes for adaptation and the process of adaptation themselves will be key for all the developing countries. This is applicable equally to the whole region of Latin America.

Colombia flagColombia: Although there was progress on some important aspects of implementing the Cancun agreements, the package of Durban decisions in general was far from ambitious. There are still many questions pending negotiation if we are to achieve full implementation of the Cancun agreements.

Ecuador flagEcuador: We consider the creation of the Adaptation Committee extremely important and we hope it becomes operative as quickly as possible. It gives the opportunity to strengthen the Convention in matters of adaptation.

El-Salvador flagEl Salvador: It is key for providing valuable access to these bodies and to contributing more effectively to the phenomenon of climate change. For this country these are complementary elements for making better and more accessible contributions to the problem and challenge of climate change.

Honduras flagHonduras: They are groups that help strengthen processes within the UNFCCC, but that have to be up and running in the short term. For Latin America as a whole they will provide greater representation for the region and give greater relevance to important subjects such as adaptation, technology transfer, capacity strengthening, etc.

Nicaragua flagNicaragua: Adaptation Committee: with a total of 16 members at a global level, Central America will have little chance of being represented, particularly if the countries of Africa and the islands are given priority.

Paraguay flagParaguay: It is very difficult to comment on this now, as the agreements reached have been very generic in all aspects. It is a question of waiting to see how 2012 works out and thus having a clearer view of what the Durban agreements actually mean.

 

Please publish modules in offcanvas position.