Nairobi didn’t yield the same inspirational miracles that Montreal did, but we still left with work being accomplished. Countries agreed, negotiations ended on time, but a lot was put off to next year. Here’s an overview of what happened:
- Post-2012, the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol for Developed Countries: Article 3.9 (that requires developed countries to discuss their targets for after 2012, the 2nd part of Kyoto) agreed to a modest amount of analysis about effectiveness of current measures and policies and potential for further reductions, but but with no end-date. Developed countries with targets under the Kyoto Protocol basically agreed on a work plan to figure out commitments for Kyoto part-2 (after 2012).
- Article 9 (that requires countries to review the entire Kyoto Protocol) agreed that it had completed a modest review of the Protocol in in Nairobi, and will do a second review in 2008. Next year’s conference will be when parties decide what exactly should be in that review.
- Working on Making it Easier for Countries to Join: Countries agreed to work on making it easier for countries to be involved in Kyoto, by possibly starting with just voluntary commitments for developing countries. This is a sticky issue because it minimizes accountability, but at the same time allows more countries to be a part of the work. Russia was expected to block this decision if it didn’t get enough progress in Nairobi (like what happened last year - See “Why We Won”). Thankfully, we moved forwards deciding to talk about voluntary commitments in the spring followed by further consideration as part of the official agenda at next year’s conference.
- The Adaptation Fund ($ for projects in developing countries that will help respond to climate change) had Terms of Reference and principles for governance agreed. Would have liked to see actual governance agreed. The Adaptation Fund gets its money from a levy on Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) credits. Developing countries secured the right to decide which projects get funding. Would have like to see actual governance agreed, not just principles.
- Deforestation (cutting down trees) is over 20% of the problem of climate change. We decided to discuss it in a workshop in the spring, followed by talks int he summer. But did not agree on anything beyond 2007. Will need to push this next year. This is an important issue for deciding how some developing countries like Brazil will participate in the 2nd phase of Kyoto, post-2012.
- The expert group working on Technology Transfer was given one more year to work on issues. This is a huge deal for developing countries and important to whatever the final deal is. Developing countries wanted to change the way tech transfer was dealt with and to secure more money, but developed countries wouldn’t budge. So a decision was put off until the spring for the mid-year meeting to see if a draft decision could at least be put forward to next year’s meeting at COP 13 (this is in the Convention on Climate Change, not Kyoto).
- Dialogue is a part of the Convention on Climate Change - it’s a place for involving the non-Kyoto countries and the Kyoto countries without targets yet (developing countries) in the discussions about Kyoto targets. We want to make sure that formal negotiations happen under the Kyoto Protocol that will build on the way Kyoto is right now, instead of starting over under the Convention (the mother of Kyoto).
- Over-Arching Goal: is to get governments to agree to a “mandate” (basically a package-deal) to negotiate at next year’s conference, COP/MOP3, that would take outputs from all the issues listed above, and then set a time line of ideally 1 year (although 2 years may be more likely) to finish the negotiations. Then governments will be able to ratify this in time to avoid a gap between the first and second Kyoto commitment periods.
There is a lot to push for at COP/MOP3 - but it will have to happen.
In a nutshell, a lot of things got put off until next year. And only the bare minimum was accomplished. There was a general lack of urgency present at this conference, which was surprising given how relevant the topic was to the surrounding area of Kenya.
Either way, it was relevant that non-governmental organizations made a significant impact, yet again. We have a lot to work towards for next year, and we must be thankful that these negotiations moved forward, although slightly. Pressure must be continued to be put on all of our governments, and we must continue to do public outreach through our work.
People need to know. We are quickly running out of time - too quickly. But we don’t need to wait for our leaders to act on climate change - we can be the leaders. We can pick up the pace. We can push this forward.
We have to.
———With thanks and reference to Louise Comeau, Climate Action Network———–
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Also of interest is the Two Degrees show final report from Nairobi.
Listen to the archives of Information Morning here on CBC in Halifax, http://www.cbc.ca/informationmorningns/
at 7:15 am Thursday morning.
Outstanding diary … I hope you blog much much more on this!
You say:
• Developed countries refused to give funds to developing countries for new sustainable technologies.
I find it inconceivable that this could be the case — could you give some reasons as to why developed countries would refuse to give funds for something so important? Yes, it is no doubt bureaucratic decisionmaking, but do you know their rationale?
[This blog is] highly recommended.
Definitely…keep posting.
[This blog is] recommended.
Good question Nightprowlkitty - Thanks!!
Allow me to clarify…
This is specifically with reference to discussions within the subject of Technology Transfer; essentially developing countries wanted to change the way technology transfer is handled in order to secure more money- but developed countries didn’t budge.
A decision was deferred to next May’s mid-year meeting to see if at least a draft decision could go to the conference next year. This is a critical issue for developing countries and whatever the final mandate is that’s agreed on in the next year or two.
In other areas of aid, not specifically related to transferring technology, there has been a fabulous response from developed countries to helping developed countries - so this one mis-hap is not meant to be misleading!!
A positive press release from the UN on climate aid from developed to developing countries to adapt to climate effects can be read here in the News section.
Dear Zoe Caron,
Nice web page! I tried to send you this fluffy little piece I did for Positive News (oddly enough, they wanted news with a positive spin to it!), using your Sierra Youth Coalition address, but the kindly postmaster returned my e-mail:
http://www.positivenews.org.uk/artman/publish/article_1106.shtml
Maybe I’ll have more luck with this site? Please let me know.
Maybe you have the addresses for Golam, Sena, Micah, the young man from Beijing, the women from Uganda, Kenya, Switzerland and France, etc., and could forward this to them as well.
Could you send me the name and contact information for the fellow from China, pictured here?
Many thanks.
All the best,
Garry Thomas
thomasg@ithaca.edu
Here is the article Gary posted! It’s nice to see that our panel had such positive ripple effects
Generation Kyoto
Garry Thomas
Mar 2, 2007
Positive News Issue
Half way through the UN Climate Change Conference, held in Nairobi from November 6-17, Dr. Joseph Ouma Muga, a 70 year old Kenyan professor of geology and environmental studies, stood up in a meeting and said, “This is one of the best days of my life.”
Dr. Muga was not speaking of the plenary sessions where over 6,000 delegates from more than 180 countries were debating the science and economics of climate change, emission- reduction proposals, carbon finance, and after Kyoto what? He was praising the energy, creativity, and intelligence of the only youth panel at the conference, “Generation Kyoto: Youth-led Climate Change Action from Local to Global.” The panelists, from Canada, India, Togo, Costa Rica and the Netherlands, were brought to
Nairobi by organizations such as Greenpeace and Solar Generation International.
UN climate change conferences have been held annually for 12 years now, and are best known for having negotiated the Kyoto Protocols in 1997. One hundred sixty six nations have now signed on, pledging to reduce their greenhouse gases collectively by 5% as compared to the baseline year of 1990. Elegant calls to urgent action came from two Nobel Peace Prize laureates, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and Wangari Maathai, and the authoritative voice of Sir Nicholas Stern of “The Stern Report” fame.
Though few agreements were made at the conference, the fact that representatives from 180 countries could carry out such serious business or that the UN can function at all during such trying times in such a vulnerable part of the world is still a marvel of modern times. It was inspiring that young people from around the world could have both hope and such a good presence at the Nairobi meetings. And there is some reason to believe that this year’s conference did lay some good groundwork for global action, thanks in part to the contributions of Generation Kyoto.
Hello Zoe,
That’s a great summmary of the discussions in Nairobi.
I was reading a paper in the awesome compilation “Reclaiming Africa” by James Shikwati, that refered to the environment movement as similar (and even as powerful) to the Christian evangelical movemnts that came that so to the spread of Christianity. The author (I do not recal his name) went on to compare the language used by the evangelical movement to that used by the environment movement’s agents; words or phrases like “saving” the environment, building. He went on to describe “environmentalism” as the “new religion” that came in to fill the vaccum left by the socio-economic ideologies propagated by Karl Marx, Comte, and others.
In a another paper in the same book a section that covers the history of National Parks in Africa and the marginalization of indigeneous peoples that occupied those “parks” (before they were parks) in an effort to preserve a pristine untouched “Eden”, with little regard for the said indigenous peoples opinion or input.
In your write-up above you mention the reluctance of the “developed nations” to support activities that would enable the “developing nations” adjust to inevitable climate change. (Q.) Do you see a link/rather a contradiction between what I have mentioned above and the “developing nations” stance?
I have often heard WHO (World Health Organization) and KEMRI (Kenya Medical Research Institute) that Malaria - the leading killer in Africa is a climate prone disease (not AIDS or Tuberculosis); with areas in Kenya and other African countries that previously did not have any record of Malaria cases, now having some- the reason being the climate change pattern graduating towards warmer temperatures. (Q.) Was there any mention, at the Nairobi talks, of “Technological Transfer” to cope with Malaria in Africa, or perhaps provide more support to efforts already on the ground by Africans themselves, to tackle the spread of Malaria as was the case in Europe and the North American countries over 40 years ago?
I look forward to your resopnse.
Regards,
Specioza.