Institute of Development Studies

Deal or No Deal? What can we expect from the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen?

1 December 2009

Will the international representatives gathering in Copenhagen the UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen (COP15) be able to agree an international framework on climate emissions - preventing a future globally catastrophic temperature rise of four to six degrees centigrade? IDS Fellow Farhana Yamin, an international environmental lawyer, researcher and climate activist, will be attending COP15 as a member of the delegation of Antigua and Barbuda. One week before the start of the conference she spoke at IDS about what we can expect from the negotiations.

Farhana Yamin has been a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since 1994, has worked as a climate change advisor to a number of developing country governments including the Maldives and Antigua and Barbuda.

Why is COP15 so important?

The Kyoto protocol set out legally binding targets for carbon emission reduction for a five year commitment period from 2008-12 for developed countries. The first of these periods is about to come to an end and we now need a successor treaty that sets out new targets. The Kyoto protocol was never accepted by the US government and they've never had any legally binding targets on climate emissions. Historically they've had a hostile attitude to Kyoto which is basically a multilateral economic treaty with an environmental component. Copenhagen will negotiate an international regime that regulates the economies of the rich world.

Climate change impacts on development, social justice and the eradication of poverty in profound ways. There are governance issues around power. The countries that have contributed least to the problem hope to set an agenda that holds richer countries to account. They will be trying to articulate their cases and to to right a moral wrong, and demand financial assistance to help them cope with a problem not of their making.

What are the key issues that will be discussed in Copenhagen?

One of the big issues is the emissions targets that different rich countries take on and how legally binding they are. The climate regime has always defined targets scientifically, and not in terms of what each country thinks is politically feasible. The scientific argument is that total global efforts must reduce climate emissions to a range of 25-40 per cent below 1990 emissions by 2020 in order to avoid a catastrophic temperature rise. At the moment we're nowhere near this, most rich countries are probably between 3-12 per cent.

The financial side of the story is also very important. The UN Framework Convention on Climate change and Kyoto recognised that developing countries have made less historical contribution to these emissions and agreed financial assistance to help them meet their new targets. The money needed to achieve this is far greater than typical ODA quantities. The EU thinks this amount should be $100bn per year but the UN estimates that $300-400bn per year will be needed by 2020. COP 15 won't deliver that kind of money but should hopefully put in place a system to help secure this funding.

Another issue up for discussion is how to generate international funding from outside of national treasuries, e.g. through levies on international aviation, shipping and carbon auctions. This would be a real breakthrough element but it is unlikely that it will be fully agreed at Copenhagen and these discussions will continue at the G8 and G20 over the next few years.

What are the core elements of the Copenhagen deal?

Mitigation, or action to reduce greenhouse gases, will be important. This includes reduction of fossil fuels, deforestation and agricultural emissions. It's possible that there will be a breakthrough on deforestation at Copenhagen as many forest-rich nations like Brazil and Indonesia have already shown willing to tackle deforestation, providing there is financial assistance. But an agreement on deforestation might result in lower emission-reduction targets from fossil fuels and once again the burden for action is placed on developing countries while richer countries continue to increase emissions.

The critical issue for development is adaptation. Even if Copenhagen agreed to zero emissions from the whole world it would make no difference for next 10-20 years as past emissions are already locked into the atmosphere. Impacts on poverty and the most vulnerable communities are inevitable, many countries have already had to take action and they need support. The Copenhagen package should hopefully include a set of financial and institutional responses for adaptation and capacity building of about $5-10bn from 2010.

The Copenhagen agreement should also include decisions about institutions. The UN, for example, has a very fragmented climate adaptation agenda with different bodies having different responsibilities. Links between different bodies need to be linked up to create a coherent and consistent set of adaptation packages for each country.

Longer-term issues of migration, relocation, loss of sovereignty and human rights are all spelled out in the negotiating texts. Insurance schemes and economic diversification plans will be needed but there is a need for a lot of research into what will actually work on the ground .

Legally versus politically binding agreements

Farhana Yamin said that she had never known a climate conference where the outcome was still so open at this point during the 20 years that she has worked on climate change. Normally with one week to go you would have a very good idea of the conference outcomes, but COP15 could end up producing something really good, greenwash or nothing at all.

The announcement that over 70 Heads of State will attend has added a new twist. Civil society has pushed climate change up the agenda and put pressure on these leaders to do something. But making full use of the Heads of State will be a challenge. They won't want to read 200 pages of text, and are likely to sign off on a six to eight page document that skates over all the nuts and bolts that give the agreement legal meaning.

It's still possible that there could still be a total collapse of talks. All the different officers in charge of different negotiations will put forward different texts on different issues and we might end up not being able to integrate them into a 'final package deal.' There is a difference between having a politically binding or legally binding agreement. At the end of the day politically binding agreements are meaningless so many parties will still be fighting for a final legally binding package to be adopted by Copenhagen or shortly thereafter.

Related News

The Big Question for Development, IDS Podcast December 2009

Published: 1 Dec 2009

Related Audio