Copenhagen and the Pacific Islands
SAVE PAPER, PRINT DOUBLE-SIDED IF YOU CAN
www.globalfocus.org.nz info@globalfocus.org.nz +64 4 472 9549
Onepager
Last updated Feb 2010 Written by Kees Keizer
The handy guide to global issues on one sheet of paper
CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate Change and the
Pacific Islands Countries
Probably the biggest threat to sustain-
able development for PICs is climate
change. Many people in the PICs live
coastally or on low-lying islands and so
are particularly vulnerable to changes
in the earth’s termperature.
The impacts of climate change on daily
life in the PICs will be severe. Less land
and increased salination of land result-
ing from sea level rises will affect food
production. Erratic weather conditions
mean more floods, droughts and cy-
clones which in turn will reduce the
supply of freshwater and damage crops.
Coral reefs and associated ecosystems
will be degraded by warmer oceans and
important food sources like tuna will
move to cooler water. Pests and disease
carrying insects will thrive in the warm-
er wetter conditions.
Pacfic peoples are already experienc-
ing some of these impacts and, as
conditions deteriorate, are facing the
prospect of having to leave their home
countries or villages.
The UNFCCC and the
Copenhagen conference
The United Nations Framework Conven-
tion on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is
an international agreement adopted at
the 1992 Earth Summit. Ratified by 192
countries, the UNFCCC aims to prevent
“dangerous human interference with
the climate system”
1
through global
commitments to agreed targets enabled
through updates or protocols.
The Copenhagen conference was the
15th Conference of the Parties (CoP15)
of the UNFCCC. It was hoped, among
other outcomes, that a legally-binding
emission reduction agreement to ensure
the earth’s temperature did not exceed
two degrees celsius above pre-industrial
times would ensue. Such an agreement
was to replace the existing Kyoto Proto-
col which expires in 2012.
The Pacific Island Countries
at Copenhagen
Both individually and collectively, PICs
fought hard for a comprehensive out-
come during the talks.
The December 2009 Copenhagen climate change conference
failed to deliver. The much anticipated breakthrough climate
agreement, based on definitive outcomes and binding targets
on carbon emission reductions never happened. Pacific Island
Countries (PICs), among the most vulnerable to the adverse ef-
fects of climate change, fought hard for a strong outcome.
Kiribati Protestant Church (photo: CWS)
In the lead up to the conference, the 42-
member Alliance of Small Island States
(AOSIS), which includes all PICs, released
their Declaration on Climate Change.
The declaration echoed wider calls for a
legally binding agreement on emission
reduction but it went further. It advocat-
ed for action to limit global warming to
1.5°C rather than than the 2°C proposed
by larger nations: two degrees of warm-
ing would put some Pacific nations under
water. It also called for global emmisons
to peak by 2015 and be reduced by 85%
by 2050 and for adequate financial as-
sistance to poorer nations to lessen the
adverse effects of climate change.
4
Facts, figures, quotes
2,3
» PICs account for only about 0.5%
of global carbon emissions but are
amongst the most vulnerable to the
adverse impacts of climate change.
» The average sea level rise expected
is 18-58cm in a hundred years. PICs
under greatest threat are Tuvalu,
Kiribati and parts of Solomon Islands.
» In the absence of adaptation, cost
of damages in food sector by 2050
could represent 2-3% of Fiji’s and
17-18% of Kiribati’s 2002 GDP.
“No island left behind” – Samoan PM
“We’re proud of what Ian Fry [Tuvalu’s
chief negotiator] has done for Tuvalu.
He’s put us on the map when all
the developed countries here seem
determined to wipe us off the face of
the Earth.” – prominent Tuvalu activist
“Some parties are not willing to
respect our right – our right to
survive.” – Cook Islands PM
SAVE PAPER, PRINT DOUBLE-SIDED IF YOU CAN
www.globalfocus.org.nz info@globalfocus.org.nz +64 4 472 9549
Global Focus Aotearoa is a specialist
provider of information and education on
global and development issues. We provide
services to support critical analysis and a
deeper understanding of these issues. Our
website gives quick access to our lend-
ing library, magazines, teaching resources,
email updates, training information and
much more. Global Focus Aotearoa is a
non-profit organisation, core funded by the
International Development Group of MFAT.
To learn more:
Global Focus Weblinks
‘Climate Change’ section links to the latest
reports and articles. www.globalfocus.
org.nz/infoservices/weblinks/
The Global Focus library features
the books ‘Heat’, ‘Right to Survive’,
‘The Politics of Climate Change’ and
many other resources. www.globalfocus.
org.nz/infoservices/library/
Just Change magazine’s ‘Going
Under’ issue features case studies
from the Pacific and around the world.
www.globalfocus.org.nz/justchange
demands stalling proceedings for almost
a day as delegates debated whether or
not to even consider them. Talks only
resumed when the meeting agreed that
Tuvalu’s issues would be put on the
provisional agenda of the next CoP.
After intense and often heated negotiations,
the ‘Copenhagen Accord’ was drawn up.
Some leaders described the Accord as a
‘start’, and the UN climate change chief
negotiator described it as ‘politically
important’, as states have “...demonstrat[ed]
a willingness to move forward.”
5
. Others
have called it a ‘disappointment’, a ‘failure’
and even a ‘suicide pact’.
Many countries including the PICs
criticised the Accord as weak as it is not
legally binding and they felt that the
stated goals didn’t go far enough. There
were also concerns that the promised
financial assistance may simply be
repackaging of existing aid commitments
rather than anything new.
Countdown to Mexico City
Despite the increased international
attention on the threat to low-lying atoll
The Copenhagen Accord: key elements
» goal rather than commitment to limit global temperature increase to under two
degrees celsius
» countries to specify mitigation pledges by January 31, 2010 and establish
reporting procedure
» $30 billion extra funding by 2012 to help majority world countries reduce
emissions, preserve forests, and adapt to climate change
» goal of $100 billion a year by 2020 to address majority world country needs
» establish a Copenhagen Green Climate Fund, a High Level Panel to oversee
funding programmes.
Given the livelihoods and survival of
many of its member states were under
immediate threat, AOSIS was adamant
that the minority world countries, who
traditionally hold the bulk of power in
such negotiations, should not underesti-
mate the severity of the situation.
During negotiations, the tiny Pacific is-
land of Tuvalu was very active in pushing
for AOSIS’s position. Tuvalu’s delegation
demanded that the words ‘legally bind-
ing’ be included in any agreement. Tuvalu
also insisted that the inter-party discus-
sions be more transparent as opposed to
the closed door sessions that were domi-
nating the conference.
Samoa, Fiji, Solomon Islands and the Fed-
erated States of Micronesia also made a
presentation to the conference. The Sa-
moan prime minister expressed the ur-
gency felt by members of those delega-
tions by saying that they did not attend
Copenhagen to make up the numbers:
“We are here because science instructed
us to be here …. Science instructed us to
act now. Not next week or next year.”
5
Setback at Copenhagen
The Copenhagen talks , often critiqued for
being disorganised and badly directed, ran
into difficulties trying to get consensus
on limiting global warming even to 2°C.
The countries who would be required
to reduce their emissions the most
were the large polluters, like the United
States, were unwilling to make such a
sacrifice. The emerging economies like
China, India, South Africa and Brazil were
reluctant for a global 2°C deal saying it
violated the right of developing countries
to fast economic growth. Meanwhile
Tuvalu punched above its weight with its
nations, delegates from the PICs came away
angry and disappointed as the meeting
closed without a legally binding agreement.
According to the Solomon Islands UN
ambassador, “We went in, AOSIS fought
for everything we could .… [but] we didn’t
come out with much.”
6
Many countries have failed to meet the
deadline for countries to specify miti-
gation pledges laid out in the Accord.
Greenpeace says, in fact, that major pol-
luters have made no new commitments
through Copenhagen and that the world
is set for catastrophic climate change
7
.
Tuvalu’s chief negotiator has put hope in
the United States passing climate legis-
lation, and says that that Copenhagen
at least laid the groundwork for a legally
binding treaty at CoP 16 in Mexico City in
December 2010 and in associated climate
talks scheduled for June 2010 in Bonn,
Germany
8
.
Since Copenhagen, the PICs have contin-
ued with the Pacific Adaptation to Climate
Change (PACC) project developing key ways
to build resilience to climate change.
We choose to use the terms minority and majority world instead of terms such as developed/
developing or first/third world to avoid language that implies ranking and to reflect the fact
that ‘developing countries’ make up the majority of the world’s people.
References
1
Fact sheet: An introduction to the UNFCCC and its
Kyoto Protocol, UNFCCC, 2009.
2
Asia Pacific: Impact of Rising Sea Levels on Small
Islands, Relief Web, 2009
3
Climate Pacific@CoP15, Climate Pasifika, 2009.
http://climatepasifika.blogspot.com/
4
AOSIS Declaration on Climate Change 2009, SIDS,
2009.
5
UNFCCC Press Briefing on the outcome of Copenha-
gen and the way forward in 2010, UNFCCC, 2009.
6
1.5 degrees rejected, Pacific condemned as 25 lead-
ers deliver Copenhagen Accord, SPREP, 2009.
7
Greenpeace. ‘Copenhagen Accord recycles old cli-
mate commitments’, press release, 1 Feb 2010.
8
Ben Block. Interview with Tuvalu Climate Negotiator
Ian Fry, 13 Jan 2010, Worldwatch Institute
8