It remains unclear up to what extent they will manage to solve key contentious points. They have just arrived to the negotiations and therefore may not have a clear picture of how complicated and multi-level game they play. And next precious hours pass.
The number of options and brackets in the discussed texts is impressive. It will require a lot of effort to reach agreement on the final versions. Majority of sentences look like the following exemplary fragment on emission reduction targets in the text summing up the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Kyoto Protocol (AWG KP):
„the states will reduce their emissions by at least [X][49][15] [percent][quantified emission limitation or reduction objectives]below the 1990 level in the commitment period from 2013 to [2017][2020]”.
Level of trust among the parties is permanently decreasing. The G77 i.e. a group of developing countries is accused by more developed countries of blocking negotiations and wasting time that remained for reaching consensus. Today in Danish newspapers there was a rumour that the Danes who are tired of resistance of developing countries will no longer work on including them in the agreement. The strategy of accusing developing countries of groundless blocking the negotiations is widely criticized by NGOs. They claim it suggests that developed countries expect developing countries to accept every proposal presented to them.
On the other hand, developing countries accuse the developed ones of making decisions behind closed doors and attempts to break the unity of the G77 group. They have lost trust especially for the Danes, whom they accuse of lack of transparency and non-democratic way of holding the Presidency. Developing countries are often not invited to informal meetings aimed at coordinating positions that are organized by the Danes. Therefore, many rumours are created, uninformed delegates are more and more frustrated and the atmosphere among African delegations is rather a funeral-type one.
It is difficult to evaluate intentions of developed countries that talk individually with some members of the G77. On Tuesday, there was a rumour that the US promised Bangladesh higher share in the adaptation fund in exchange for mediation in reaching agreements with China and India. Ethiopia separated itself from Africa’s ambitious proposal of limiting the increase of global temperature to 1.5°C, keeping concentration of CO2 on the level of 350 ppm, accepting the target of 45% emission reduction, short-term financing of $100bn and a long-term one of 5% GDP. During the yesterday’s speeches by heads of states, the Prime Minister of Ethiopia Meles Zenawi presented different „Copenhagen agreement” that was allegedly supported by all the African countries. Its text is not ambitious and does not even include provisions on reduction targets, financing will not be additional to current development aid and will not be derived from public funds. Other African countries separated themselves from this proposal and statements by their delegates and observers were full of bitterness - according to them Ethiopia was not speaking on behalf of the whole continent.
The European Union, including Poland, does not want to adopt more ambitious commitments because it claims that other parties should change their positions first, especially the United States, China and India. Unfortunately, it is more and more obvious that if the EU does not unconditionally increase its emissions reduction target from 20 to 30% by 2020 it will not break the deadlock and mutual trust among parties will not be re-established. Countries will leave Copenhagen with a political declaration of a common struggle against climate change which will not be legally binding, and consequently will not have a real impact. It is difficult to expect China and India to accept more ambitious reduction targets before developed countries do so since their emissions per capita are 5 times lower than those of the US and Canada. Moreover, they do not hold responsibility for historic greenhouse gases emissions that already pollute the atmosphere. The EU seems to choose such criteria of decision making that allow to diminish its responsibility. In this particular „hitting game” members of the Polish delegation specialize. To every proposal that Poland should accept the 30% reduction target they answer that we are released from responsibility because we have already completed our part and now it is time that other countries cut their emissions. It is clear that the Polish delegation is happy with the lack of progress and does not intend to put any effort into coming closer to the Copenhagen’s success.
The US is waiting for president Obama’s arrival. It is likely that it fears losing its position towards China and that is why it points out the fact that Chinese emissions will continue to grow. At the same time however they give a hand to the least developed countries, small islands and African states and announce support for the long-term financing of $100bn annually by 2020 n the framework of a clean energy fund and actions for climate protection. It is not clear what this proposal means in reality. Doubts are related mostly to the fact if the funds are going to be additional to current development aid, if they come from public funds and if they are to be used for further penetration of developing countries markets by international corporations. According to some commentators, the US proposal is calculated to dismantle G77 and diversify interests of Africa and China. Nevertheless, current positions of developing states that emphasise the need for maintaining the Kyoto Protocol but in a way that includes the US does not change. The US does not agree on such a solution and a way of reconciling these contradictory positions remains unclear.
Practically no one has a complete knowledge on what is going on. Even experienced negotiators and ministers seem to be lost. Therefore, the most common position presented in speeches is that others should do something. Countries concentrated on hitting the ball.
Is there at least a small ray of hope for Copenhagen’s success? Common press conference of the EU and African Union representatives can be a sign of that. As Jose Barroso said his experience shows that decisions are most often made at the very last moment. This could also be the case in Copenhagen. But will leaving everything to the very end lead to good, just and ambitious decisions?