Negotiating the future (First of two parts)

To this day, Bernarditas de Castro Muller says, she does not know exactly why she was taken out of the official Philippine delegation to the 15th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held last December in Copenhagen, Denmark.

“I can only guess,” she adds. Later, I ask her whether I can write about everything she says during the day. “Sure,” she chirps. “What else can they do to me?”

That morning at the social hall of the main building of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, she whom the British newspaper The Guardian once called “Dragon Woman” looks low-key and unassuming. She is in a comfortable white shirt, apple green pants and comfortable black flats. She sports a green wristwatch. While an undersecretary of the Department of Science and Technology gives a presentation on the impact of the El Niño phenomenon —worsened, he says, by the runaway population growth of the country—Mrs. Muller, native of Binan Laguna, wife of a Swiss economist, grandmother of three, retired diplomat and zealous climate negotiator, quietly enjoys her mid-morning snack of mangga’t suman.

Indeed, sitting two tables in front of me, Mrs. Muller looks sweet and motherly. But when she steps into the podium to start her day-long lecture before civil society organizations, academics and department employees, then you know right away that she is an authority on the matter. She minces no words, driven as she is by knowledge, experience—and passion.

Muller has an insider’s view of what goes on in the climate talks by virtue of her role as one of the lead negotiators for G77 plus China, a group of more than 130 developing countries from Africa, Asia and Latin America. She takes on this role in her personal capacity, having been chosen by her colleagues (she was “adopted” by the Sudan so she could remain in the talks) and supported by China, India, Brazil and South Africa.

She is in town to talk about the convention—the alphabet soup that is the UNFCCC—science-based, universal (signed by 193 countries), legally binding (ratified) and came to force in March 1994. It is the basis for the Conference of Parties talks every year beginning 1995, the same talks that gave us the Kyoto Protocol, the Bali Action Plan, and most recently, the Copenhagen Accord.

The convention contains all the overarching principles that must not be forgotten as mankind tries to strike a deal for concrete steps to bring down the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The notions of equity, historical and common but differentiated responsibilities are spelled out. The preamble talks about historical and current emissions that have accumulated in the atmosphere as a result of centuries of economic activity of developed countries. The share of developing countries remains low, the document says, but will increase as they meet their development needs. Muller relates this to rich countries’ insistence that developing world should curb its emissions, effectively passing on the burden to them. Now, she says, there is denial of historical responsibility among the developed countries.

The convention’s provisions on financing and technology transfer also run counter to what actually happens. Financing is an issue because the developed world makes it appear as though money is an act of magnanimity towards the poor, vulnerable countries. But Muller reminds us that financing is NOT charity, not donor aid, not official development assistance, not private sector commitment. It’s an obligation under the convention. The word used is shall, not may, would or should. Sadly, what happens is that richer nations ask their poorer counterparts to show them their mitigation initiatives, and they give money only if they like these initiatives. “It should be the other way around,” Muller says.

Likewise, technology transfer means the sharing of know-how that could be locally adopted. Certainly it is not simply buying eco-friendly products that all of a sudden swamp the market.

Climate Justice, Muller says, was only recently coined. And yet what it means is what is embodied in the text and the spirit of the convention.

The problem is that these underlying principles in the convention have been conveniently set aide to make room for machinations to prevent the changing of the status quo. Two words sum up the disconnect between the lofty words of the convention and the world’s spectacular failure to come up with a workable, binding climate deal: Bad faith.

The processes, rules and dynamics are established. For example, the Conference of Parties is organized into various negotiating blocs (G77 plus China, the European Union, the Umbrella Group, the Environmental Integrity Group, the Economies in Transition) which pick their own representatives to communicate negotiating parameters with the large group, and to get back to the members to bring them whatever input there is from the others. There are also various types of meetings formed to help the process (Friends of the Chair, Working Group, Contact Group, Informal Informals, Bilateral Consultations, Green Room, among others).

What happened in Copenhagen, Muller says, was that these processes were blatantly disregarded. The sovereignty of states was not respected. Later, everybody attributed the failure to come up with a decisive, substantial, legally binding agreement to the sheer number of countries and their individual concerns. “But that’s what the negotiating blocs and the lead negotiators are for,” Muller says. “They are lying through their teeth!” –Adelle Chua, Manila Standard Today

Continued on Monday

adellechua@gmail.com