Paul Horton, Director of International Development, CIWEM

How to sum up the events at COP15? So frustrating, interesting and depressing in equal measure but in terms of adaptation, CIWEM has been involved in a couple of events that have raised the profile of water – which was not referenced in the adaptation text. This has been a major issue of concern because a key adaptation route is the water sector and already floods, droughts and water scarcity is becoming worse. Including water in the adaptation text also pushes the thinking beyond the political boundaries of sovereign states. To be honest the water community is good at talking to itself but not to others, so until recently there has been an absence of water people at these meetings. So a step forward has been taken.

One thing that is emerging is the need to connect the various sectors, climate change, water, health, agriculture, land management etc. Too often the thinking is solo, so lets mix things up and see what happens, surely that isn’t a radical statement?

There are somewhere in the region of 30-40,000 people and numerous side events everyday, some of them are excellent,  yet how does information (where relevant) get circulated to the negotiating teams as there is no clear mechanism? Organisations like WWF are good at conveying information but even they struggle.

The issues of faith and the environment has emerged and there is an inter-faith declaration that is being given to the negotiating teams. Given CIWEM has had a faith and environment network for some time, this is also a positive development.

In terms of Obama nobody is quite sure when he is coming or what role he will play. Latest thinking is he will now be here on 18th perhaps to sign off on a historical commitment! The difficultly with these negotiations is that they are not lead by the most senior people and when it comes to implementing the agreements, the track record is not great. Apparently Arnold Schwarzenegger is due here, so perhaps there is hope after all.

More thoughts to follow.

Dr Richard Pagett, CIWEM Climate Change Network

“In the very early seventies, in my student days, I used to frequent a place called the “Growling Budgie”; a weird set-up with a disparate collection of oddballs and intellectuals (no idea where I fitted into that range ~ and don’t email me and offer your opinion, thank you!).  Anyway, the Copenhagen “do” is very much like that.  There are somewhere between 20 000 and 36 000 folks here, from 190+ countries.  It is a bit like the set of a bar in some off-world location where all earthlings and aliens get together to drink/eat, chat and deal.  There are ice statues of Amazonian Indians, polar bears, walking trees (how those got through Security I have no idea) lots of people in national dress, and plenty of “suits” and, of course, the “CIWEM Delegation”.

The documentation for each day was at least 12 inches in height, there were 5 - 7 sessions running simultaneously, and you could listen to the Plenary Sessions in French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Arabic and, fortunately, in English too.

It is impossible to read everything, hear everything or talk about everything. So you focus. And there are so many very focussed and earnest people here.  You could almost trip over the intensity.

So what is being said, what is the conclusion? No idea.

I write this with a background of yelping from the contingent from Tuvalu (a small south Pacific island that is threatened by sea level rise), a human clock going tick tock (can you imagine how annoying that is while I am trying to concentrate) and a bunch of aliens talking in tongues apparently saying “take me to your climate change leader” (I thought all aliens had a thing they could press so they could immediately speak and understand English).  

Oh yes, what do we know?  Well, it is far more complex than one could ever imagine.  If you thought the science was confusing (and don’t worry about the leaked emails; just remember that one Harold Shipman didn’t mean all doctors were serial killers) then the politics are horrendous.

It is unlikely that anything real will come out of this particular meeting (just a political agreement that something will be done) and the clever money is now preparing from Bonn (mid-2010) where the legal agreement (and the reduction figures) will be sorted out.  Then the Mexico City meeting this time next year will be when it is all signed and sealed.  But who knows ~ the Terminator, Arnold Schwarzenegger (try spelling that from memory) is coming so anything is possible.... or not”

Dr. Julian Wright, Policy Advisor for Climate Change (Environment Agency) and CIWEM Climate Change Network

It's fascinating to see the wheels of negotiation move forward - even with the occasional stall of the engine there seems to be a sense that everyone at the conference is at least aiming at the same general direction.  (There are of course notable exceptions, but luckily I avoided a Hitler Youth accusation from Lord Monckton!  Read about this Daily Mail and the Guardian)

There is a notable contrast at the conference between the cafes and corridors, where the level of noise and excitement is incredible, and the plenary sessions themselves which generally proceed in an atmosphere of near serenity.  The side events are interesting, but it is difficult to see the line of sight between the discussions and conclusions at these and the main negotiations, particularly as few negotiators appear to be attending the side events.
 
I think we were lucky to have at least a few negotiators at the GPPN water event, and the main points surrounding the importance of having water within the adaptation text were very well highlighted - water needing transboundary cooperation, the need for integrated water resources management, the role of water in meeting the Millenium Development Goals and so on.  In a way we can claim some success as water now seems to be included in the latest draft adaptation text.  The hope is that it stays in and is not lost as negotiations reach fever pitch during the last days of the conference! 

Joanna Cooper, CIWEM Policy Officer

One thing I was not expecting was the number of young activists, compared to events I have attended in the UK the atmosphere was entirely different, with a captive media audience impromptu demonstrations and gimmicks were undertaken, a magician explaining the worst magic trick in history – carbon offsetting, aliens, tree’s, ‘fossil of the day’, singing… the list is endless.  Another surprise was the number of indigenous groups represented, I got the impression this was a new element compared to previous UNFCCC meetings, and whilst encouraging, I hope the strength of their voices will be reflected in the final text. 
 
On reflection what do I think now?  I’m none the wiser, still confused, depressed, excited, but at least no longer exhausted.  As I write this small piece channel 4 news is reporting on strong protests from Copenhagen, a stalling in negotiations, and the news of Danish environment minister Connie Hedegaard resigning as president of the summit, to be replaced by Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen. She said the move was procedural, rumours a rife that this development is out of frustration at the lack of progress.  Releasing a big sigh I’d like to end on a more positive note, the final afternoon I was lucky enough the watch Obama’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech, encouraging faith in human nature, shortly followed by a de-brief from the deputy head of Holland’s delegation who seemed hopeful of an agreement whilst conceding that an overview of the COP15 process is impossible, I’m still clinging onto these messages we can’t give up on these negotiations yet. 

Laura Grant, CIWEM Policy Officer

What can I add to this blog when everyone has managed to capture the frenzy within the Bella Center so well already?  It now seems the CIWEM team were lucky to enter the centre and the negotiations at all, as thousands were made to wait for hours outside in the cold this week and observer numbers were limited to just one thousand.
Luck also seemed to play a large role in one’s experiences of the conference as we happened to share a lunch table with some of Al Gore’s delegation and receive an impromptu briefing from the Dutch deputy chief negotiator. This was networking on the largest scale. Yet with so many people each eager to push their own agendas (and business cards) it is difficult to tell if any lasting links will have been forged.

Away from the chaos the Danes informed us that Copenhagen had never been so busy, yet only venturing out in the mornings and evenings we felt there were few people outside of the conference venue to see the impressive exhibitions and street decorations. Some interesting events had been put in the main Kongens Nytorv with the European Environment Agency and French Embassy buildings adorned with large banners of support.  The square featured a maze created from stamped fabric that had been signed by people around the world urging leaders to ‘seal the deal’,  Bob Dylan’s ‘A hard rain’s a-gonna fall’ had been brought dramatically to life with climate change images and a photography exhibition detailed 100 places that will disappear as a result of climate change. The most noteworthy though was the WWF Copenhagen ice bear - a life sized ice sculpture of a polar bear gradually left to melt revealing a skeleton underneath.  It was hard not to be moved.  As we approach the final hours of the conference lets hope some of the world’s leaders were given a chance to see these powerful images.

Dr Nick Murry, Associate Director (Halcrow Group) and CIWEM Climate Change Network Steering Group

From the ashes of disaster?

As we entered the terminal building, we were reminded of the importance of the meeting of 193 countries that was about to take place, by an illuminated panel depicting an ageing President Obama, which read: “I’m sorry.  We could have stopped catastrophic climate change…  We didn’t.”  

The signs were there from the start; actually they were there long before that. One might go as far as to say that the 15th ‘Conference of the Parties’ (COP15) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was destined to fail. It became clear several months ago that a Kyoto type deal was never really going to be an outcome; even UN climate chief, Yvo de Boer said so.

Having worked (under contract) for the UN before, I had some idea of how ‘bureaucratic’ it can be, but the first plenary session I attended on Day 1 (the 1st meeting of the 8th Session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA)) was a real eye-opener.  Lengthy administration and procedure was followed by (sometimes rambling) ‘opening statements’ – the time limit disregarded by most, including the Chair, putting the session behind schedule almost as soon as the statements had begun.

Within a relatively few ‘speeches’ it was apparent that there were two opposing camps, the industrialised countries wanting emissions reductions from the big emitters of the developing world, plus a curb on deforestation, and the developing countries blaming the ‘opposition’ for creating the problem and therefore being morally obliged to pay for it (there was no ‘money on the table’ at that stage of the proceedings).

It was a theme that continued for the duration of the conference, judging by the news that came through subsequently, encapsulated by the so called ‘Danish text’ proposing significant mitigation from the developing countries (including China and India but excluding the least developed ones), in a significant departure from Kyoto (under which the industrialised countries bore the brunt of the mitigation action). 

Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, Sudan’s ambassador to the UN, representing the Group of 77 developing countries plus China (pictured on screen here), was most vociferous in condemning the move.  No surprise then, that the technical folk and the negotiators didn’t have it all sorted when the politicians began to arrive. 

So what was Obama thinking ‘doing a deal’ with China, India, Brazil and South Africa? How could he side-line Europe (not to mention 180 or so other nations)?  In retrospect, I guess he was doing exactly what he needed to do – side stepping the chaos, focusing on the emerging new world order and the countries in which the cuts are going to be needed, salvaging what he could from China’s attempts to degrade the outcome, removing excuses for inaction around China’s intransigence at home and paving the way for the next steps, with those who need to do more of the stepping. The ‘deal’ he struck perhaps reflects how the World will increasingly be divided - between major carbon emitters and everyone else (apparently some 30 countries are responsible for over 90 percent of GHG emissions).

But Obama is only part of the story. As I write, it’s emerging from the aftermath that Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao effectively scuppered what could have been a far better deal, insisting that the global target of 50% reduction by 2050 and 80% reduction by 2050 for industrialised nations target were removed, as well as 2020 as the peak year for emissions, as part of the price for agreeing what he did. Possibly not surprising when China’s growing political power fundamentally depends upon continued coal based economic growth; in the short term, at least.

The Copenhagen Accord (or ‘Decision -/CP.15’ in ‘UN speak’) (merely ‘noted’ by the majority) has been described by some as a disaster (a “suicide pact” according to the Sudanese) and (far fewer) others as a potential breakthrough - by bringing the big emitters on board. As predicted, it has failed to convert a unique opportunity and gathering of world leaders into a legally binding plan of action. And it falls well short of what the scientists tell us is required, as well as what many large emitters (including the EU) were prepared to sign up to.

So what has it achieved? An agreement to reduce global emissions “to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius.”  Plus greater emphasis on stopping deforestation (previously neglected). And $10 billion per year from 2010 to fund developing nations' projects to deal with climate change impacts and develop sustainable energy (rising to $100 billion a year by 2020), which is not insignificant. It also enshrines agreement between US and China on measurement, reporting and verification, which is could turn out to be one of the most significant achievements. Obama proclaimed “What we have achieved at Copenhagen will not be the end but rather the beginning.” Maybe we had to take a step back to start moving forward faster? Only time will tell whether it was too little, too late.

I was only there for a couple of days at the start of the conference but even then the whole jamboree seemed like organised chaos – negotiators, observers and press all rushing around amidst an impossible programme of meetings and side events - a delegate could potentially experience a completely different conference by selective attendance of sessions. By day two, the protestors were already chanting at the gates and there were even (officially sanctioned?) protests inside the Bella Centre – the indigenous peoples groups making the most noise on a regular basis during the time I was there.

As for water, reference to which had been taken out of the text even before the Barcelona meeting, it has been largely subsumed into ‘adaptation’.  One interpretation might be that it is implicit in what needs to be done but that it has been relegated by the clear and present urgency of agreeing on mitigation. The good news is that there is now a commitment to substantial financing to help developing countries build resilience and adapt to climate change impacts – the majority of which are about water. 

The Global Public Policy Network on water management (GPPN) (a partnership of Stakeholder Forum and Stockholm International Water Institute) continued their efforts to highlight the importance of including specific reference to water in the negotiating text – their Tuesday Press conference, pictured here, was followed by a Side Event, supported by CIWEM (as at the Barcelona GPPN/ UN Water ‘Water Day’).

If Bonn and then Mexico City (the next COP) are going to be about thrashing out the detail of what’s been agreed in Copenhagen, then water is going to squarely back in the discussion and 2010 is going to be an important year -one in which I think CIWEM should keep up the good work and redouble its efforts to make its influence felt.

Heading back on the (offset paid) delayed, last Easyjet flight of the day (I should have known better), I wondered how it was all going to pan out – and how an agreement could emerge from such apparent chaos and entrenched positions.  Now that the conference is over (and the analysis beginning), I have mixed feelings. Of course, there’s plenty to be depressed about in terms of missed opportunity (China’s fault?) (or Obama’s too?) and even more in terms of the unaddressed, underlying crisis.  Being positive, at least we now have a single accord, with initial reductions commitments, which now cover the key emerging economies (those that will produce 90% of new emissions by 2050) – a potentially stronger base to build on…

COP15 will no doubt be regarded as an important moment in history; both a massive disappointment, certainly, but perhaps also as the time at which those nations that had largely ignored the climate crisis began to engage (China and the US included). It might also been seen as a turning point in the way climate change is approached on the international stage – a move away from the current bureaucratic UN organised, politically driven, single meeting, consensus seeking process (destined to fail?).

However history judges it, it seems clear that serious commitment and effort is going to be needed in 2010.  Instead of finger pointing, governments need to take on board the lessons learned, change their approach and promote a positive vision of a low-carbon, prosperous future. The ambitions for Copenhagen mustn’t be allowed to fade in 2010 and success in Mexico needs to be grown from the ashes of (what many seem to view as the) disaster of COP15. We all need to play a part where we can - CIWEM included - and to persuade those in power to take the necessary action. As yet another poster pointed out, as I was leaving: “We’re all citizens of Hopenhagen” (population 6.789 billion).

See here for a web cast of the conference.