THE UN climate change summit was thrown into turmoil yesterday after the 53-strong African group vigorously objected to the direction of the talks. One representative claimed it would put Africa “on death row”.
Mali’s environment minister Victor Fodeke said what had started out as a “train of hope” was now in danger of crashing because the conference president, Denmark’s climate minister Connie Hedegaard, was trying to “sideline” the Kyoto protocol.
Ms Hedegaard revealed her hand by proposing the plenary session should discuss unresolved issues of “long-term co-operative action” under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), barely mentioning Kyoto.
The African group, which has long suspected a plot by developed countries to ditch the protocol after its “first commitment period” ends in 2012, immediately insisted that targets for future emissions cuts must be kept on the agenda.
“The Kyoto protocol is like the regulation of speed limits, but now they’ve decided to have a free ride,” Dr Fodeke said. “We can never accept the killing of the Kyoto protocol. It would mean the killing of Africa and, before accepting that, we should all die first.”
“We are in a very stressful situation”, said Algerian negotiator Kamel Djemouai, who chairs the African group. Kyoto was “the only binding legal instrument that exists now and is functioning. The risk to have a new treaty is that it would take years to come into force.”
Alden Meyer, representing the Union of Concerned Scientists, said it was clear that the Africans were determined to retain the protocol. “They don’t want to jump ship until they can see the ship they are jumping on – otherwise they fear falling into the deep ocean.”
As a result of their protests, Ms Hedegaard held a frantic round of informal consultations with them and other groups before agreeing to amend the discussion of her agenda items by starting with Kyoto. But the atmosphere inside was described as “freezing”.
UNFCCC executive secretary Yvo de Boer said keeping Kyoto on the agenda was “not just an African concern”, but one shared by “the vast majority of countries here. What Ms Hedegaard had done was to explain the approach she’s taking . . . to ensure a good outcome.”
Some interpreted the African group’s actions as a “walk-out”. Trócaire’s Niamh Garvey said what happened was “not an attempt by African countries to block the talks, but a necessary show of strength to rich nations that are trying to . . . shirk their responsibilities.”
Sorley McCaughey of Christian Aid Ireland said: “Africa has been driven to this by the lack of progress on key substantive issues such as strong mitigation targets, and the lack of offers of financial support from rich countries to poor to help them deal with climate change.”
Jo Leinen, German Social Democrat chair of the European Parliament’s environment committee, said it would be “helpful if two of the main stakeholders come out of their defensive positions” – a reference to the US, the G77 and China.
Mr Leinen said the US needed to “come forward with a bigger commitment” both to reduce its emissions and provide aid. But China also needed to commit to doing more than it had already proposed.
British energy secretary Ed Miliband said it was “not just about getting any old deal – we want an ambitious outcome that respects the science. The stars are aligned that make this the most propitious time for a new agreement.”