Afronline – The Voice Of Africa

Countries are quietly signing up to the Copenhagen Accord, but commitments on emissions cuts and funding remain unclear. “We have to decide by this Sunday whether we sign the Copenhagen Accord, or not. If we don’t, we have no access to the US$ 30 billion quick-start-up fund,” Namibian Prime Minister Nahas Angula told a gathering of businessmen in Windhoek at the end of January. “Perhaps we should just take it.’

Angula was wrong on the first point: faced with a less than enthusiastic response from the 194 Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), its executive secretary, Yvo de Boer, dropped the Jan. 31 deadline long before Angula’s predicament arose.

That nobody in the Namibian government seemed to be aware of this is revealing.

The second part of Angula’s statement, however, is on the money. Why, indeed, not “just take it”? As Angula reminded his audience, the Accord is not binding, nor does it require any action from developing countries.

The rushed “letter of association”, sent out the next day by environment minister Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah, made a vague reference to Namibia’s “abundant renewable energy sources” and its willingness to profit from “mechanisms available under the Kyoto Protocol”.

The current number of Clean Development Mechanism projects or large-scale renewable energy initiatives in Namibia (zero), however, indicates policymakers are not rushing to put in mitigation or adaptation actions in place.

Africa not in accord

Ninety-four countries – about half of those present in Copenhagen – have endorsed the Accord one way or another, including the world’s top ten emitters. But a far lower percentage of African governments have submitted, with only 15 out of 53 African countries making Accord commitments so far.

At least half of the African governments that have signed on have high forest cover or significant reforestation potential, and their vote might be inspired by the wish to see a deal on REDD (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) materialise sooner rather than later.

Eleven of the fifteen are least developed countries (LDCs), highly dependent on development aid. Still, that number accounts for just a third of the 33 LDCs in Africa. Notably absent – albeit probably for widely diverging reasons – are Africa’s oil-producing nations and small island states.

African commitments vary from South Africa’s statement on emissions targets, to simple courtesy notes stating countries wish to be associated with the Accord, to letters from countries explaining that they are signing on only under protest.

“We note that a few areas need to be considered as we build this Accord to deliver a solid and legally binding agreement at COP16 that meets the world’s expectations for effective climate change action,” writes Malawi. It reiterates the call for a maximum 1.5 degree temperature rise, more time to develop Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions and 1.5 percent of developed countries’ GDP in climate funding.

Sierra Leone reminds the UNFCCC that the Accord was never “formally adopted” by the parties “and therefore is not an official outcome of COP15.” It also warns the UNFCCC “the Copenhagen Accord must not replace the Kyoto Protocol and should not be subsumed under the Copenhagen Accord”.

Mitigation

Do the pledges on the table address African countries’ concerns over funding and temperature rise? Six African countries – three LDCs – submitted their own plans for mitigation to the UNFCCC. These mostly focus on setting up climate change committees or list “green” energy initiatives that are in the pipeline.

Several others, like the Republic of Congo and Madagascar, make any actions conditional on a REDD-deal. Others reserve the right to continue their chosen high carbon development paths.

Continue reading on IPS

Analysis by Servaas van den Bosch – IPS