2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference: Difference between revisions
→External links: link to Commons is now defined on wikidata |
|||
(33 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|International climate change conference in Durban, South Africa in November–December 2011}} |
|||
{{Use dmy dates|date= |
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2020}} |
||
{{Infobox recurring event |
{{Infobox recurring event |
||
| name = United Nations Climate Change Conference |
| name = United Nations Climate Change Conference |
||
| image = COP17 Logo.jpg |
| image = COP17 Logo.jpg |
||
| caption = |
| caption = |
||
Line 7: | Line 8: | ||
| location = [[Durban]], [[South Africa]] |
| location = [[Durban]], [[South Africa]] |
||
| coordinates = <!-- {{coord|LAT|LON|region:XXXX_type:event|display=inline,title}} --> |
| coordinates = <!-- {{coord|LAT|LON|region:XXXX_type:event|display=inline,title}} --> |
||
| also known as = COP17/CMP7 |
|||
| participants = [[United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change|UNFCCC]] member countries |
| participants = [[United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change|UNFCCC]] member countries |
||
⚫ | |||
| website = {{URL|www.cop17-cmp7durban.com}} |
|||
| |
| next = [[2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference|Doha 2012 →]] |
||
⚫ | |||
}} |
}} |
||
The '''2011 [[United Nations Climate Change Conference]]''' (COP17) was held in [[Durban]], South Africa, from 28 November to 11 December 2011 to establish a new treaty to limit carbon emissions.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://unfccc.int/meetings/unfccc_calendar/items/2655.php|title=Calendar|work=UN Framework Convention on Climate Change|publisher=United Nations| |
The '''2011 [[United Nations Climate Change Conference]]''' (COP17) was held in [[Durban]], South Africa, from 28 November to 11 December 2011 to establish a new treaty to limit carbon emissions.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://unfccc.int/meetings/unfccc_calendar/items/2655.php|title=Calendar|work=UN Framework Convention on Climate Change|publisher=United Nations|access-date=8 December 2011}}</ref> |
||
A treaty was not established, but the conference agreed to establish a [[legally binding]] deal comprising all countries by 2015, which was to take effect in 2020.<ref name="Guardian 11 Dec 2011">{{cite news|url= |
A treaty was not established, but the conference agreed to establish a [[legally binding]] deal comprising all countries by 2015, which was to take effect in 2020.<ref name="Guardian 11 Dec 2011">{{cite news |last1=Harvey |first1=Fiona |author-link=Fiona Harvey |last2=Vidal |first2=John |date=11 December 2011 |title=Global climate change treaty in sight after Durban breakthrough |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/11/global-climate-change-treaty-durban |access-date=11 December 2011 |work=The Guardian |location=London}}</ref> There was also progress regarding the creation of a [[Green Climate Fund]] for which a management framework was adopted. The fund is to distribute US$100 billion per year to help poor countries adapt to climate impacts.<ref name=bbc111211/> |
||
| title = Global climate change treaty in sight after Durban breakthrough |first=Fiona|last=Harvey|first2=John|last2=Vidal|work=The Guardian |location=London|date= 11 December 2011 |accessdate=11 December 2011}}</ref> There was also progress regarding the creation of a [[Green Climate Fund]] for which a management framework was adopted. The fund is to distribute US$100 billion per year to help poor countries adapt to climate impacts.<ref name=bbc111211/> |
|||
While the president of the conference, [[Maite Nkoana-Mashabane]], declared it a success,<ref name=bbc111211>{{cite web |
While the president of the conference, [[Maite Nkoana-Mashabane]], declared it a success,<ref name=bbc111211>{{cite web |
||
| url = |
| url = https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16124670 |
||
| first = Richard |
| first = Richard |
||
| last = Black |
| last = Black |
||
Line 26: | Line 24: | ||
| title = Climate talks end with late deal |
| title = Climate talks end with late deal |
||
| date = 11 December 2011 |
| date = 11 December 2011 |
||
| |
| access-date = 11 December 2011}}</ref> scientists and environmental groups warned that the deal was not sufficient to avoid [[global warming]] beyond 2 °C as more urgent action is needed.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Harvey |first1=Fiona |author-link=Fiona Harvey |last2=Vidal |first2=John |date=11 December 2011 |title=Durban deal will not avert catastrophic climate change, say scientists |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/11/durban-climate-change-deal?intcmp=239 |access-date=11 December 2011 |work=The Guardian |location=London}}</ref> |
||
| url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/11/durban-climate-change-deal?intcmp=239 |
|||
| title = Durban deal will not avert catastrophic climate change, say scientists |
|||
| first = Fiona|last=Harvey|first2=John|last2=Vidal |
|||
| work = The Guardian |location=London|date= 11 December 2011 |accessdate=11 December 2011}}</ref> |
|||
==Background== |
==Background== |
||
[[File:COP17 December 6.jpg|thumb|From left to right: UN Secretary-General [[Ban Ki-moon]], President of South Africa [[Jacob Zuma]], President of the Conference [[Maite Nkoana-Mashabane]] and UNFCC Deputy Executive Secretary Richard Kinley]] |
[[File:COP17 December 6.jpg|thumb|From left to right: UN Secretary-General [[Ban Ki-moon]], President of South Africa [[Jacob Zuma]], President of the Conference [[Maite Nkoana-Mashabane]] and UNFCC Deputy Executive Secretary Richard Kinley]] |
||
The conference was officially referred to as the 17th session of the Conference of the Parties {{nowrap|(COP 17)}} to the [[United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]] (UNFCCC) and the 7th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties {{nowrap|(CMP 7)}} to the [[Kyoto Protocol]]. In addition, the two permanent subsidiary bodies of the UNFCCC – the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) – were likely to hold their 35th sessions. The [[2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference]] extended the mandates of the two temporary subsidiary bodies – the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the |
The conference was officially referred to as the 17th session of the Conference of the Parties {{nowrap|(COP 17)}} to the [[United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]] (UNFCCC) and the 7th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties {{nowrap|(CMP 7)}} to the [[Kyoto Protocol]]. In addition, the two permanent subsidiary bodies of the UNFCCC – the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) – were likely to hold their 35th sessions. The [[2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference]] extended the mandates of the two temporary subsidiary bodies – the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the convention (AWG-LCA) – so they were expected to meet as well. |
||
A primary focus of the conference was to secure a global climate agreement as the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period (2008–2012) was about to end.<ref>{{cite news|url= |
A primary focus of the conference was to secure a global climate agreement as the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period (2008–2012) was about to end.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/dec/14/cancun-climate-change-compromise-carrington|title=Cancún deal leaves hard climate tasks to Durban summit in 2011|last=Carrington|first=Damian|date=14 December 2010|work=[[The Guardian Weekly]]|location=London|access-date=4 December 2011}}</ref> It was also expected to focus on "finalising at least some of the Cancun Agreements", reached at the [[2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference|2010 Conference]], such as "co-operation on [[clean technology]]", as well as "forest protection, adaptation to climate impacts, and finance – the promised transfer of funds from rich countries to poor in order to help them protect forests, [[Adaptation to global warming|adapt to climate]] impacts, and [[green economy|"green" their economies]]".<ref name="BBC Black">{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15518421|title=Durban: A summit of small steps?|publisher=BBC News |date=31 October 2011|first=Richard|last=Black}}</ref> |
||
A month before the Conference began, the [[BBC]] highlighted two contentious proposals which had been submitted – one by [[Russia]], the other by [[Papua New Guinea]], both aiming to amend the [[United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]]. Russia's proposal<ref>[http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/05.pdf "Proposal from the Russian Federation to amend article 4, paragraph 2 (f), of the Convention"]</ref> would bring about a "periodic review" whereby countries currently categorised as "poor" could be recategorised as "rich", and thus obliged to shoulder greater obligations in the combat against climate change. BBC Environment correspondent Richard Black commented that the proposal would be "provocative and explosive, if Russia pushes it", because potentially affected countries, such as [[Economy of China|China]] and [[Economy of Brazil|Brazil]], would "push back very strongly". Papua New Guinea's proposal,<ref>[http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/04.pdf "Proposal from Papua New Guinea and Mexico to amend Articles 7 and 18 of the Convention"]</ref> submitted by Ambassador [[Kevin Conrad]] with the support of [[Mexico]], would introduce a "last resort" mechanism to break any deadlocks in climate change negotiations through a three-quarters majority vote, thus clarifying the decision-making process under the |
A month before the Conference began, the [[BBC]] highlighted two contentious proposals which had been submitted – one by [[Russia]], the other by [[Papua New Guinea]], both aiming to amend the [[United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]]. Russia's proposal<ref>[http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/05.pdf "Proposal from the Russian Federation to amend article 4, paragraph 2 (f), of the Convention"]</ref> would bring about a "periodic review" whereby countries currently categorised as "poor" could be recategorised as "rich", and thus obliged to shoulder greater obligations in the combat against climate change. BBC Environment correspondent Richard Black commented that the proposal would be "provocative and explosive, if Russia pushes it", because potentially affected countries, such as [[Economy of China|China]] and [[Economy of Brazil|Brazil]], would "push back very strongly". Papua New Guinea's proposal,<ref>[http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/04.pdf "Proposal from Papua New Guinea and Mexico to amend Articles 7 and 18 of the Convention"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130626042827/http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/04.pdf |date=26 June 2013 }}</ref> submitted by Ambassador [[Kevin Conrad]] with the support of [[Mexico]], would introduce a "last resort" mechanism to break any deadlocks in climate change negotiations through a three-quarters majority vote, thus clarifying the decision-making process under the convention. Describing the proposal as "intriguing", Black noted that although it would theoretically enable [[developing countries]] to use their numerical superiority to adopt any kind of world-wide binding obligation, in practical terms they would still need the approval of rich countries to secure funding.<ref name="BBC Black" /> |
||
== |
==Statements== |
||
=== |
===China=== |
||
⚫ | [[Xie Zhenhua (politician)|Xie Zhenhua]], head of the Chinese delegation, stated that China was willing to make binding commitments to limited greenhouse gases in 2020 if they appropriately took into account historical contributions of greenhouse gases by developed countries such as the United States and European states and sustainable economic needs of [[Developing country|developing countries]] such as China and India.<ref name=Xinhua>{{cite news|title=China open to talks on binding emission cut|url=http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-12/05/content_14213729.htm|access-date=8 December 2011|newspaper=[[China Daily]] |agency=Xinhua|date=5 December 2011}}</ref> |
||
⚫ | [[India]]'s representative at the conference, [[Jayanthi Natarajan]] stated that India "will not be intimidated. There is an attempt to shift the blame to developing countries. We do not accept that. Please do not hold us hostage. And please do not take our agreement to be weakness."<ref name="Gerhardt">{{Cite news|last=Gerhardt|first=Tina|date=11 December 2011|url=http://www.progressive.org/climate_change.html|title=Get it Done! Youth to UN on Climate Treaty|work=[[The Progressive]]|location=Madison}}</ref> Natarajan responded to European Union Climate Commissioner [[Connie Hedegaard]], saying that:<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Africa/India-gets-its-way-as-climate-summit-in-Durban-closes/Article1-780872.aspx|title=India gets its way as climate summit in Durban closes|date=11 December 2011|work=[[Hindustan Times]] |location=New Delhi| |
||
⚫ | <blockquote>We have shown more flexibility than virtually any other country. But equity is the centrepiece, it cannot be shifted. This is not about India. Does fighting climate change mean we have to give up on equity? We have agreed to protocol and legal instrument. What's the problem in having one more option? India will never be intimidated by any threat or any kind of pressure. What's this legal instrument? How do I give a blank cheque? We're talking of livelihoods and sustainability here. I'm not accusing anybody, but there are efforts to shift the (climate) problem to countries that have not contributed to it. If that is done, we're willing to reopen the entire Durban Package. We did not issue a threat. But are we being made into a scapegoat? Please don't hold us hostage.</blockquote> |
||
===People's Republic of China=== |
|||
⚫ | [[Xie Zhenhua]], head of the Chinese delegation, stated that |
||
Xie said that he was concerned about the reluctance of developed nations to [[climate change mitigation|reduce]] their own greenhouse gas emissions.<ref name="ho zhenhua china comments"> |
Xie said that he was concerned about the reluctance of developed nations to [[climate change mitigation|reduce]] their own greenhouse gas emissions.<ref name="ho zhenhua china comments"> |
||
Line 54: | Line 44: | ||
| url = http://www.voanews.com/tibetan-english/news/China--Calls-Canadas-Kyoto--Protocol-Withdrawal-Regrettable-135578288.html |
| url = http://www.voanews.com/tibetan-english/news/China--Calls-Canadas-Kyoto--Protocol-Withdrawal-Regrettable-135578288.html |
||
| publisher = Voice of America |
| publisher = Voice of America |
||
| |
| access-date = 14 June 2012 |
||
| author = Stephanie Ho |
| author = Stephanie Ho |
||
| date = 14 December 2011 |
| date = 14 December 2011 |
||
Line 60: | Line 50: | ||
</ref> He called on developed countries to provide financial and technical aid to help developing nations fight against and cope with the [[effects of global warming|effects of climate change]].<ref name="ho zhenhua china comments"/> |
</ref> He called on developed countries to provide financial and technical aid to help developing nations fight against and cope with the [[effects of global warming|effects of climate change]].<ref name="ho zhenhua china comments"/> |
||
=== |
===India=== |
||
⚫ | [[India]]'s representative at the conference, [[Jayanthi Natarajan]] stated that India "will not be intimidated. There is an attempt to shift the blame to developing countries. We do not accept that. Please do not hold us hostage. And please do not take our agreement to be weakness."<ref name="Gerhardt">{{Cite news|last=Gerhardt|first=Tina|date=11 December 2011|url=http://www.progressive.org/climate_change.html|title=Get it Done! Youth to UN on Climate Treaty|work=[[The Progressive]]|location=Madison}}</ref> Natarajan responded to European Union Climate Commissioner [[Connie Hedegaard]], saying that:<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Africa/India-gets-its-way-as-climate-summit-in-Durban-closes/Article1-780872.aspx|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111212091126/http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Africa/India-gets-its-way-as-climate-summit-in-Durban-closes/Article1-780872.aspx|url-status=dead|archive-date=12 December 2011|title=India gets its way as climate summit in Durban closes|date=11 December 2011|work=[[Hindustan Times]] |location=New Delhi|access-date=13 December 2011|agency=Indo-Asian News Service}}</ref> |
||
⚫ | [[Greenpeace]] issued a statement calling on conference participants to ensure a peak in global emissions by 2015, continue the Kyoto Protocol and provide a mandate for a comprehensive legally binding instrument, deliver climate finance and set up a framework for protecting forests in developing countries.<ref>{{Cite press release|url=http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/Polluticians-occupy-the-climate-/|title=Polluticians occupy the climate|publisher=[[Greenpeace]]|date=23 November 2011}}</ref> |
||
⚫ | <blockquote>We have shown more flexibility than virtually any other country. But equity is the centrepiece, it cannot be shifted. This is not about India. Does fighting climate change mean we have to give up on equity? We have agreed to protocol and legal instrument. What's the problem in having one more option? India will never be intimidated by any threat or any kind of pressure. What's this legal instrument? How do I give a blank cheque? We're talking of livelihoods and sustainability here. I'm not accusing anybody, but there are efforts to shift the (climate) problem to countries that have not contributed to it. If that is done, we're willing to reopen the entire Durban Package. We did not issue a threat. But are we being made into a scapegoat? Please don't hold us hostage.</blockquote> |
||
===CGIAR=== |
|||
⚫ | Bruce Campbell, Director of the [[CGIAR]] research program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), said it was astonishing that agriculture, one of the worst emitters of greenhouse gases, remained excluded from global agreements on climate change.<ref>Dardagan, Colleen. "[http://www.iol.co.za/mercury/leaders-need-to-focus-on-agriculture-1.1192908 Leaders need to focus on agriculture]." ''The Mercury.'' The Mercury Independent Online, 6 December 2011. Web. 24 February 2012.</ref> "Leading agricultural groups, from farmers and researchers to policymakers and development organisations, have all come together to call on COP17 negotiators to address the need for a Work Programme on agriculture", Campbell said.<ref name="Negotiations">"[http://chimalaya.org/2011/12/06/negotiations-must-deliver-a-work-programme-on-agriculture/ Negotiations must deliver a work programme on agriculture]." ''chimalaya.org.'' Climate Himalaya, 6 December 2011. Web. 24 February 2012.</ref> "Now, it is up to negotiators to heed our joint call-to-action and allow agriculture to play its part in building resilience amongst vulnerable populations, helping farmers adapt to more unpredictable and extreme weather conditions and mitigating future climate change".<ref name="Negotiations"/> |
||
===Friends of the Earth=== |
===Friends of the Earth=== |
||
Nnimmo Bassey, Chair of Friends of the Earth International, said "delaying real action until 2020 is a crime of global proportions ... An increase in global temperatures of 4 degrees Celsius, permitted under this plan, is a death sentence for Africa, Small Island States, and the poor and vulnerable worldwide. This summit has amplified climate apartheid, whereby the richest 1% of the world have decided that it is acceptable to sacrifice the 99%."<ref name="Gerhardt"/> |
Nnimmo Bassey, Chair of Friends of the Earth International, said "delaying real action until 2020 is a crime of global proportions ... An increase in global temperatures of 4 degrees Celsius, permitted under this plan, is a death sentence for Africa, Small Island States, and the poor and vulnerable worldwide. This summit has amplified climate apartheid, whereby the richest 1% of the world have decided that it is acceptable to sacrifice the 99%."<ref name="Gerhardt"/> |
||
=== |
===Greenpeace=== |
||
⚫ | [[Greenpeace]] issued a statement calling on conference participants to ensure a peak in global emissions by 2015, continue the Kyoto Protocol and provide a mandate for a comprehensive legally binding instrument, deliver climate finance and set up a framework for protecting forests in developing countries.<ref>{{Cite press release|url=http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/Polluticians-occupy-the-climate-/|title=Polluticians occupy the climate|publisher=[[Greenpeace]]|date=23 November 2011|access-date=5 December 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111222130659/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/Polluticians-occupy-the-climate-/|archive-date=22 December 2011|url-status=dead}}</ref> |
||
⚫ | Bruce Campbell, Director of the [[CGIAR]] research program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), said it was astonishing that agriculture, one of the worst emitters of greenhouse gases, remained excluded from global agreements on climate change.<ref>Dardagan, Colleen. "[http://www.iol.co.za/mercury/leaders-need-to-focus-on-agriculture-1.1192908 Leaders need to focus on agriculture]." ''The Mercury.'' The Mercury Independent Online, 6 |
||
===Youth Delegation=== |
===Youth Delegation=== |
||
Anjali Appadurai, a college student at [[College of the Atlantic]] in [[Maine]] and a member of the Youth Delegation, delivered a succinct speech that summed up the science regarding global warming and the failure of the UNFCCC negotiations to rein in climate change, demanding the UN "Get it done!"<ref name="Gerhardt"/> |
[[Anjali Appadurai]], a college student at [[College of the Atlantic]] in [[Maine]] and a member of the Youth Delegation, delivered a succinct speech that summed up the science regarding global warming and the failure of the UNFCCC negotiations to rein in climate change, demanding the UN "Get it done!"<ref name="Gerhardt"/> |
||
==Durban Platform== |
==Durban Platform== |
||
After two weeks of negotiations a deal was reached only on the last day, Sunday 11 December, after a 60-hour marathon negotiation session. Negotiators agreed to be part of a legally binding treaty to address global warming. The terms of the future treaty |
After two weeks of negotiations a deal was reached only on the last day, Sunday 11 December, after a 60-hour marathon negotiation session. Negotiators agreed to be part of a legally binding treaty to address global warming. The terms of the future treaty were to be defined by 2015 and become effective in 2020.<ref name=":0">[http://unfccc.int/bodies/body/6645.php UNFCCC:Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP), accessed online 2/8/2015]</ref> The agreement, referred to as the "Durban Platform for Enhanced Action", was notable in that for the first time it included developing countries such as China and India, as well as the US which had refused to ratify the [[Kyoto Protocol]].<ref name="Guardian 11 Dec 2011"/> |
||
The agreement entailed the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol in the interim, although only some countries including members of the EU were indicated as likely to commit.<ref>{{Cite news|url= |
The agreement entailed the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol in the interim, although only some countries including members of the EU were indicated as likely to commit.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/dec/11/durban-conference-climate-change?intcmp=239|first=Michael|last=Jacobs|title=Hope at last at the Durban conference on climate change|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=1 December 2011|location=London}}</ref> |
||
The terms of the Durban Platform were ultimately met following the successful negotiation of the [[Paris Agreement]] at the [[2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference]] in [[Paris]], [[France]]. |
The Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action was consequently established to conclude the shaping of the next climate regime, which must include the entire international community – including the United States and emerging countries – in the fight against global warming (unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which only imposes binding reduction targets on countries listed in Annex I).<ref name=":0" /> The terms of the Durban Platform were ultimately met following the successful negotiation of the [[Paris Agreement]] at the [[2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference]] in [[Paris]], [[France]]. |
||
;Green fund |
;Green fund |
||
Line 83: | Line 77: | ||
==Responses== |
==Responses== |
||
After the conference concluded, Michael Jacobs of the [[Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment]] in London, said: "The agreement here has not in itself taken us off the 4 |
After the conference concluded, Michael Jacobs of the [[Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment]] in London, said: "The agreement here has not in itself taken us off the 4 °C path we are on... But by forcing countries for the first time to admit that their current policies are inadequate and must be strengthened by 2015, it has snatched 2 °C from the jaws of impossibility. At the same time it has re-established the principle that climate change should be tackled through international law, not national, voluntarism."<ref name=bbc111211/> |
||
[[Christiana Figueres]], executive secretary of the [[UN Framework Convention on Climate Change]] said: "I salute the countries who made this agreement. They have all laid aside some cherished objectives of their own to meet a common purpose, a long-term solution to climate change."<ref name=bbc111211reaction>{{cite news |title=Reaction to UN climate deal |url= |
[[Christiana Figueres]], executive secretary of the [[UN Framework Convention on Climate Change]] said: "I salute the countries who made this agreement. They have all laid aside some cherished objectives of their own to meet a common purpose, a long-term solution to climate change."<ref name=bbc111211reaction>{{cite news |title=Reaction to UN climate deal |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16129762 |publisher=BBC News|date=11 December 2011 |access-date=11 December 2011}}</ref> |
||
[[Kumi Naidoo]] of [[Greenpeace International]] said: "Right now the global climate regime amounts to nothing more than a voluntary deal that's put off for a decade. This could take us over the 2 |
[[Kumi Naidoo]] of [[Greenpeace International]] said: "Right now the global climate regime amounts to nothing more than a voluntary deal that's put off for a decade. This could take us over the 2 °C threshold where we pass from danger to potential catastrophe."<ref name=bbc111211reaction/> |
||
U.S. Senator [[Jim Inhofe]], who opposes government energy regulations such as cap-and-trade and has called man-made climate change a hoax,<ref>''The Hill'': [ |
U.S. Senator [[Jim Inhofe]], who opposes government energy regulations such as cap-and-trade and has called man-made climate change a hoax,<ref>''The Hill'': [https://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/194815-inhofe-global-warming-as-polar-vortex-factor-laughable/ Inhofe: 'Laughable' to call global warming a polar vortex factor]. 8 January 2014.</ref> cheered what he called the setting aside of "any remote possibility of a UN global warming treaty" and described the conference outcome as "the complete collapse of the global warming movement and the failure of the Kyoto process". Inhofe said that the message from Washington, including from President Obama and the Democratic leadership of the U.S. Senate, to the delegates of the conference was that they are being ignored.<ref>{{Cite press release|url=http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=18d950be-802a-23ad-463c-00218cbecc56|title=Inhofe on Durban UN Climate Conference: Kyoto Process Is Dead|publisher=[[U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works]]|date=7 December 2011}}</ref> |
||
German media criticised the outcome as "almost useless", saying the pledges are vague and the timeline is slow, the main merit being that the talks have been kept alive.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Crossland|first=David|date=12 December 2011|url=http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,803158,00.html|title=The Durban Climate Agreement 'Is Almost Useless{{'-}}|work=[[Der Spiegel]]}}</ref> |
German media criticised the outcome as "almost useless", saying the pledges are vague and the timeline is slow, the main merit being that the talks have been kept alive.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Crossland|first=David|date=12 December 2011|url=http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,803158,00.html|title=The Durban Climate Agreement 'Is Almost Useless{{'-}}|work=[[Der Spiegel]]}}</ref> |
||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
*[[2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference]] |
* [[2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference]] |
||
*[[Climate change mitigation]] |
* [[Climate change mitigation]] |
||
*[[Sustainability]] |
* [[Sustainability]] |
||
*[[Post–Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions]] |
* [[Post–Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions]] |
||
==References== |
==References== |
||
{{ |
{{Reflist}} |
||
==External links== |
==External links== |
||
{{Commons category |
{{Commons category}} |
||
*[http://www.cop17-cmp7durban.com/ 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference] |
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20111110104913/http://www.cop17-cmp7durban.com/ 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference] |
||
*[http://www.ipcc.ch/ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] |
* [http://www.ipcc.ch/ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] |
||
{{United Nations climate change conferences|state=collapsed}} |
{{United Nations climate change conferences|state=collapsed}} |
||
{{Global warming}} |
{{Global warming}} |
||
{{Authority control}} |
|||
[[Category:2011 in the environment]] |
[[Category:2011 in the environment|United Nations Climate Change Conference]] |
||
⚫ | |||
[[Category:History of Durban]] |
[[Category:History of Durban]] |
||
[[Category:Diplomatic conferences in South Africa]] |
[[Category:Diplomatic conferences in South Africa]] |
||
[[Category:United Nations climate change conferences|2011]] |
[[Category:United Nations climate change conferences|2011]] |
||
[[Category:United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]] |
[[Category:United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]] |
||
[[Category:2011 in South Africa]] |
[[Category:2011 in South Africa|United Nations Climate Change Conference]] |
||
[[Category:November 2011 events in South Africa|United Nations Climate Change Conference]] |
|||
[[Category:December 2011 events in South Africa|United Nations Climate Change Conference]] |
|||
[[Category:South Africa and the United Nations]] |
|||
⚫ |
Latest revision as of 23:00, 18 November 2024
United Nations Climate Change Conference | |
---|---|
Date(s) | 28 November 2011 11 December 2011 | –
Location(s) | Durban, South Africa |
Previous event | ← Cancún 2010 |
Next event | Doha 2012 → |
Participants | UNFCCC member countries |
The 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP17) was held in Durban, South Africa, from 28 November to 11 December 2011 to establish a new treaty to limit carbon emissions.[1]
A treaty was not established, but the conference agreed to establish a legally binding deal comprising all countries by 2015, which was to take effect in 2020.[2] There was also progress regarding the creation of a Green Climate Fund for which a management framework was adopted. The fund is to distribute US$100 billion per year to help poor countries adapt to climate impacts.[3]
While the president of the conference, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, declared it a success,[3] scientists and environmental groups warned that the deal was not sufficient to avoid global warming beyond 2 °C as more urgent action is needed.[4]
Background
[edit]The conference was officially referred to as the 17th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 17) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 7th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties (CMP 7) to the Kyoto Protocol. In addition, the two permanent subsidiary bodies of the UNFCCC – the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) – were likely to hold their 35th sessions. The 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference extended the mandates of the two temporary subsidiary bodies – the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the convention (AWG-LCA) – so they were expected to meet as well.
A primary focus of the conference was to secure a global climate agreement as the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period (2008–2012) was about to end.[5] It was also expected to focus on "finalising at least some of the Cancun Agreements", reached at the 2010 Conference, such as "co-operation on clean technology", as well as "forest protection, adaptation to climate impacts, and finance – the promised transfer of funds from rich countries to poor in order to help them protect forests, adapt to climate impacts, and "green" their economies".[6]
A month before the Conference began, the BBC highlighted two contentious proposals which had been submitted – one by Russia, the other by Papua New Guinea, both aiming to amend the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Russia's proposal[7] would bring about a "periodic review" whereby countries currently categorised as "poor" could be recategorised as "rich", and thus obliged to shoulder greater obligations in the combat against climate change. BBC Environment correspondent Richard Black commented that the proposal would be "provocative and explosive, if Russia pushes it", because potentially affected countries, such as China and Brazil, would "push back very strongly". Papua New Guinea's proposal,[8] submitted by Ambassador Kevin Conrad with the support of Mexico, would introduce a "last resort" mechanism to break any deadlocks in climate change negotiations through a three-quarters majority vote, thus clarifying the decision-making process under the convention. Describing the proposal as "intriguing", Black noted that although it would theoretically enable developing countries to use their numerical superiority to adopt any kind of world-wide binding obligation, in practical terms they would still need the approval of rich countries to secure funding.[6]
Statements
[edit]China
[edit]Xie Zhenhua, head of the Chinese delegation, stated that China was willing to make binding commitments to limited greenhouse gases in 2020 if they appropriately took into account historical contributions of greenhouse gases by developed countries such as the United States and European states and sustainable economic needs of developing countries such as China and India.[9]
Xie said that he was concerned about the reluctance of developed nations to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions.[10] He called on developed countries to provide financial and technical aid to help developing nations fight against and cope with the effects of climate change.[10]
India
[edit]India's representative at the conference, Jayanthi Natarajan stated that India "will not be intimidated. There is an attempt to shift the blame to developing countries. We do not accept that. Please do not hold us hostage. And please do not take our agreement to be weakness."[11] Natarajan responded to European Union Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard, saying that:[12]
We have shown more flexibility than virtually any other country. But equity is the centrepiece, it cannot be shifted. This is not about India. Does fighting climate change mean we have to give up on equity? We have agreed to protocol and legal instrument. What's the problem in having one more option? India will never be intimidated by any threat or any kind of pressure. What's this legal instrument? How do I give a blank cheque? We're talking of livelihoods and sustainability here. I'm not accusing anybody, but there are efforts to shift the (climate) problem to countries that have not contributed to it. If that is done, we're willing to reopen the entire Durban Package. We did not issue a threat. But are we being made into a scapegoat? Please don't hold us hostage.
CGIAR
[edit]Bruce Campbell, Director of the CGIAR research program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), said it was astonishing that agriculture, one of the worst emitters of greenhouse gases, remained excluded from global agreements on climate change.[13] "Leading agricultural groups, from farmers and researchers to policymakers and development organisations, have all come together to call on COP17 negotiators to address the need for a Work Programme on agriculture", Campbell said.[14] "Now, it is up to negotiators to heed our joint call-to-action and allow agriculture to play its part in building resilience amongst vulnerable populations, helping farmers adapt to more unpredictable and extreme weather conditions and mitigating future climate change".[14]
Friends of the Earth
[edit]Nnimmo Bassey, Chair of Friends of the Earth International, said "delaying real action until 2020 is a crime of global proportions ... An increase in global temperatures of 4 degrees Celsius, permitted under this plan, is a death sentence for Africa, Small Island States, and the poor and vulnerable worldwide. This summit has amplified climate apartheid, whereby the richest 1% of the world have decided that it is acceptable to sacrifice the 99%."[11]
Greenpeace
[edit]Greenpeace issued a statement calling on conference participants to ensure a peak in global emissions by 2015, continue the Kyoto Protocol and provide a mandate for a comprehensive legally binding instrument, deliver climate finance and set up a framework for protecting forests in developing countries.[15]
Youth Delegation
[edit]Anjali Appadurai, a college student at College of the Atlantic in Maine and a member of the Youth Delegation, delivered a succinct speech that summed up the science regarding global warming and the failure of the UNFCCC negotiations to rein in climate change, demanding the UN "Get it done!"[11]
Durban Platform
[edit]After two weeks of negotiations a deal was reached only on the last day, Sunday 11 December, after a 60-hour marathon negotiation session. Negotiators agreed to be part of a legally binding treaty to address global warming. The terms of the future treaty were to be defined by 2015 and become effective in 2020.[16] The agreement, referred to as the "Durban Platform for Enhanced Action", was notable in that for the first time it included developing countries such as China and India, as well as the US which had refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.[2]
The agreement entailed the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol in the interim, although only some countries including members of the EU were indicated as likely to commit.[17]
The Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action was consequently established to conclude the shaping of the next climate regime, which must include the entire international community – including the United States and emerging countries – in the fight against global warming (unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which only imposes binding reduction targets on countries listed in Annex I).[16] The terms of the Durban Platform were ultimately met following the successful negotiation of the Paris Agreement at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, France.
- Green fund
The conference led to agreement on a management framework for a future Green Climate Fund. The fund is to distribute US$100bn per year to help poor countries adapt to climate impacts.[3]
Responses
[edit]After the conference concluded, Michael Jacobs of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in London, said: "The agreement here has not in itself taken us off the 4 °C path we are on... But by forcing countries for the first time to admit that their current policies are inadequate and must be strengthened by 2015, it has snatched 2 °C from the jaws of impossibility. At the same time it has re-established the principle that climate change should be tackled through international law, not national, voluntarism."[3]
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change said: "I salute the countries who made this agreement. They have all laid aside some cherished objectives of their own to meet a common purpose, a long-term solution to climate change."[18]
Kumi Naidoo of Greenpeace International said: "Right now the global climate regime amounts to nothing more than a voluntary deal that's put off for a decade. This could take us over the 2 °C threshold where we pass from danger to potential catastrophe."[18]
U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe, who opposes government energy regulations such as cap-and-trade and has called man-made climate change a hoax,[19] cheered what he called the setting aside of "any remote possibility of a UN global warming treaty" and described the conference outcome as "the complete collapse of the global warming movement and the failure of the Kyoto process". Inhofe said that the message from Washington, including from President Obama and the Democratic leadership of the U.S. Senate, to the delegates of the conference was that they are being ignored.[20]
German media criticised the outcome as "almost useless", saying the pledges are vague and the timeline is slow, the main merit being that the talks have been kept alive.[21]
See also
[edit]- 2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference
- Climate change mitigation
- Sustainability
- Post–Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions
References
[edit]- ^ "Calendar". UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations. Retrieved 8 December 2011.
- ^ a b Harvey, Fiona; Vidal, John (11 December 2011). "Global climate change treaty in sight after Durban breakthrough". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 11 December 2011.
- ^ a b c d Black, Richard (11 December 2011). "Climate talks end with late deal". BBC News. Retrieved 11 December 2011.
- ^ Harvey, Fiona; Vidal, John (11 December 2011). "Durban deal will not avert catastrophic climate change, say scientists". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 11 December 2011.
- ^ Carrington, Damian (14 December 2010). "Cancún deal leaves hard climate tasks to Durban summit in 2011". The Guardian Weekly. London. Retrieved 4 December 2011.
- ^ a b Black, Richard (31 October 2011). "Durban: A summit of small steps?". BBC News.
- ^ "Proposal from the Russian Federation to amend article 4, paragraph 2 (f), of the Convention"
- ^ "Proposal from Papua New Guinea and Mexico to amend Articles 7 and 18 of the Convention" Archived 26 June 2013 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "China open to talks on binding emission cut". China Daily. Xinhua. 5 December 2011. Retrieved 8 December 2011.
- ^ a b Stephanie Ho (14 December 2011). "China Calls Canada's Kyoto Protocol Withdrawal 'Regrettable'". Voice of America. Retrieved 14 June 2012.
- ^ a b c Gerhardt, Tina (11 December 2011). "Get it Done! Youth to UN on Climate Treaty". The Progressive. Madison.
- ^ "India gets its way as climate summit in Durban closes". Hindustan Times. New Delhi. Indo-Asian News Service. 11 December 2011. Archived from the original on 12 December 2011. Retrieved 13 December 2011.
- ^ Dardagan, Colleen. "Leaders need to focus on agriculture." The Mercury. The Mercury Independent Online, 6 December 2011. Web. 24 February 2012.
- ^ a b "Negotiations must deliver a work programme on agriculture." chimalaya.org. Climate Himalaya, 6 December 2011. Web. 24 February 2012.
- ^ "Polluticians occupy the climate" (Press release). Greenpeace. 23 November 2011. Archived from the original on 22 December 2011. Retrieved 5 December 2011.
- ^ a b UNFCCC:Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP), accessed online 2/8/2015
- ^ Jacobs, Michael (1 December 2011). "Hope at last at the Durban conference on climate change". The Guardian. London.
- ^ a b "Reaction to UN climate deal". BBC News. 11 December 2011. Retrieved 11 December 2011.
- ^ The Hill: Inhofe: 'Laughable' to call global warming a polar vortex factor. 8 January 2014.
- ^ "Inhofe on Durban UN Climate Conference: Kyoto Process Is Dead" (Press release). U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 7 December 2011.
- ^ Crossland, David (12 December 2011). "The Durban Climate Agreement 'Is Almost Useless'". Der Spiegel.
External links
[edit]- 2011 in the environment
- History of Durban
- Diplomatic conferences in South Africa
- United Nations climate change conferences
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
- 2011 in South Africa
- November 2011 events in South Africa
- December 2011 events in South Africa
- South Africa and the United Nations
- Events in Durban