& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

’Wild roller coaster ride’ at COP 15: Us vs them

MOAZZEM HOSSAIN
The caption in the title is not mine, it is at the courtesy of chief of the UNFCC, the sponsor of the Copenhagen summit, otherwise known as COP15. Indeed, he was absolutely right after observing the 12 days of negotiations at the summit.***
THE caption in the title is not mine, it is at the courtesy of chief of the UNFCC, the sponsor of the Copenhagen summit, otherwise known as COP15. Indeed, he was absolutely right after observing the 12 days of negotiations at the summit. In this piece, however, my interest unlike other commentators is to inform the readers how the COP15 was conducted, since I have some professional interests on the subject. I am now in the middle of a book project on climate change and growth in Asia and have been coordinating the project taking in board international experts at several universities and NGOs including Dr QKAhmad, the head of the BUP and president. Bangladesh Economic Association.
What I saw in Copenhagen was certainly extraordinary. The summit started with discipline but finished in absolute chaos, at least from the view point of NGOs and observers. Who can blame the UN or the host government? It was due to the arrival of President Obama in town, the security blanket had been all over the place. The Bella Centre (the summit venue) which allowed more than 8000 delegates and observers in the first 10 days, allowed only handful in the last two days. Except heads of governments and their entourages, none was allowed. This was unprecedented and certainly a wild roller coaster ride.
Coming back to the sub-title of this piece, I am absolutely convinced, the whole episode has been played around
'us vs them'. What does it mean? I he summit's main objective was to save the planet from self-destructing before this century ends with keeping global warming under 2C, which in turn would help in keeping the rise of sea levels by 1 meter or less and so on. While every major player had been showing absolute determination in achieving these goals by reducing emission in a big way, but at closed door meetings things were different. It was all about "us vs them." Everyone wanted to put hands on the pie. No one was interested in placing binding cut of emissions on the table except the NGOs. Let us summarise the roles of the major players below:
Us vs them: Corporate lobbyists and NGOs
At the start of the meeting, it appeared that the NGO movement came to the summit with full force and well prepared. Indeed, they showed their strength and intellectual capacity in the negotiations. The campaign for a reasonable binding agreement by 193 nations had been well articulated and quite visible throughout the Bella Centre and outside since so many NGOs had participated. The most visible display was on making Copenhagen into 'Hopenhagen'. The whole atmosphere for the first 10 days was quite promising and full of optimism although with a roller coaster negotiations. Something really big would come out of the summit that was what everyone hoping for. Unfortunately, something else had been brewing indoor or in the corridors of the Bella Centre.
Although in the outside, the corporate lobbyists (us) showed quite a bit of integrity with the NGOs (them), they had always something else in mind and worked hard to reach an outcome, going neither here nor there. At the end, by the time the NGOs realised this they left Copenhagen on the 10th day out of frustration. However, it does not mean the NGOs have given up. 1 am sure they will comeback again with full force in Germany in she month's time and in Mexico City in 12 month s. It appears that some did not leave without marking a scar on the face of Copenhagen. This place is now known as Brokenhagen'. The Danish environment minister had to resign as chair of the local organising committee since she was too close to the developed nations compromising the neutrality of the host. This resulted in Danish prime minister taking over the role at the fag end of the summit.
My own personal observation is, the summit is not at all doomed. One must not forget that corporate lobbyists were also strong in the hay days of "no smoking" campaign in the '70s and '80s. Ultimately, they lost to people power. Millions of people had been saved from smoking and related diseases due to smoking-free campaign over the last thirty years. 1 am convinced this time also at COP 16 things would be different due to the lessons learned at COP 15.
Us vs them: US and China-India
Throughout the conference it was clear that there was a huge division in this UN sponsored summit. On the one side, the wealthy and powerful developed north (US/EU led), and on the other, the weak and divisive south (G771ed by Sudan). In between, there are some least developed nations who played both as a part of G77 or in some occasions in their own (Maldives immediately comes to mind). However, in the concluding two days when the heads of governments began
arriving in the Bella Centre, the whole atmosphere started to change. It was no longer north vs south anymore. It was more about big emitting nations: the mighty US (us) and emerging China-India (them) together with Brazil and South Africa. At one stage the heat was so intense that prime minister Wen Jiabao of China failed to show up in meetings with President Obama. Out of this, it was recognisable that there had been a major difference erupted between these two leaders on the issue of transparent international monitoring on China's emission control and reaching a binding agreement. At the end, the 12 paragraph accord looks like a winwin outcome for both "us" and "them".
Both the monitoring and binding clauses have been out. Thus, the world will have to wait another 12 months for a lasting and meaningful accord.
Having said that, in my opinion, one cannot and should not embroiled too much with the accord which the UN regarded it as to "take note." According to the language of the UN, the accord containing 12 paragraphs is not a legal but a political document. To the layman, this sounds like Greek, to say the least. There is, however, for the least developed and vulnerable nations such as Bangladesh, some commitments have been reached for the short to medium terms. An adaptation fund of $30 billion until 2012 has been promised
by the north. Additionally, President Obama outlined a $100 billion a year fund after 2020. Indeed, these are sensible outcomes for the frontline vulnerable nations whether from South Asia, Africa or the South Pacific.
In my opinion, at the end, this is not all doom and gloom. No need to despair. One should start preparing for Germany and Mexico City out of the lessons learned in Copenhagen or "Brokenhagen." At least, the UN must be reminded that, in the future the NGOs cannot be thrown out of the final negotiations table which must be ensured by the respective governments.
Dr Moazzem Hossain is the author of Democracy's Roller Coaster Ride in Bangladesh.