The Danish government is embroiled in a growing row at the Copenhagen Summit after the details of a preliminary agreement drafted by the hosts were leaked to the public. The draft document, which has allegedly been put together by Danish officials in co-ordination with only a select few of the most influential developed nations, outlines a set of proposals on per-capita carbon emissions quotas up to 2050 and the financing mechanisms for tackling climate change. The terms embedded in the document, along with the fact that it was drafted with the knowledge of only a select few, have triggered a flood of discontent and criticism among representatives of developing states, who are claiming that the draft document is unfair and goes against the principles of the UN. This backlash has the potential to increase the rift between developed and developing countries and raises serious doubts as to whether the representatives from the 192 countries gathered in Denmark’s capital will manage to clinch the widely-anticipated global agreement on combatting climate change.

The Bones of Contention

Rumors of the existence of a draft agreement, which according to a report by U.K. daily The Guardian has been co-ordinated by the Danish government with the United States and the United Kingdom, have persisted since 27 November, however it was not until the press picked up on it that public anger erupted. An analysis provided by the Guardian summarises the main points of the draft document, which proves controversial on three major counts from the point of view of the developing nations.

First, the document is seen as unfair as it aims to commit developed countries to specific carbon emissions reduction targets, a clause that was not part of the initial UN agreement. It also envisions the implementation of limits based on carbon emissions per capita, allowing poor states to emit no more than 1.44 tons of carbon per capita by 2050, while the limit for developed states is set at 2.67 tons.

Second, the document proposes significant modifications to the mechanism for controlling the financing activities targetted at combating climate change. "The draft also envisions that the World Bank would take a greater share of the responsibilities for financial control to the detriment of the UN, which is the preference of developing countries."

Lastly, and arguably most importantly, there is criticism of the secrecy of the document and of what is being perceived as Denmark’s bias in approaching a limited number of developed states. There are concerns that the agreement undermines the spirit of the Copenhagen Summit and that through its actions the Danish leadership has undermined the trust of developing nations in its objectivity and ability to lead the negotiations. Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese chairman of the group of 132 developing countries known as G77 plus China, summarised the prevailing sentiments among the poorer nations by saying to The Guardian that "the text robs developing countries of their just and equitable and fair share of the atmospheric space. It tries to treat rich and poor countries as equal."

Outlook and Implications

Much Ado About Nothing?

Certainly, the developing states have their reasons to be dismayed by the proposed text. The proposals for specific limitations on carbon emissions, and to an even larger extent, the call to delegate financial responsibility to the World Bank clearly put developing states at a disadvantage. However, it could be argued that the public reaction that followed the leak may be a little overplayed. The clauses proposed in the agreement are by no means new, which suggests that the negative reaction on behalf of G77 could be seen as a tool designed to bolster their negotiating position. This could also apply to the attacks on Denmark’s objectivity as well, given that as a host of the negotiations the Danish government has the responsibility not only to be objective, but also to make an effort to drive the negotiations forward. The negotiations that have taken place ahead of the Summit have been marked by the clear determination of each of the sides involved to impose their perspective on the issue of climate change, leading to little progress being made.

All these appear to be taken into account and some of the negotiators are now attempting to play down the significance of the leak. Yvo de Boer, the UN climate chief, was quick to point that "this was an informal paper ahead of the conference given to a number of people for the purposes of consultations. The only formal texts in the UN process are the ones tabled by the Chairs of this Copenhagen conference at the behest of the Parties." As controversial as the draft agreement may be, it has only highlighted rifts that were already present and well known, namely, the disagreements between developed and developing states over the level of carbon emission reductions and the means and amounts for financing climate change.Thus, the alarm bells raised following the leak of the proposal illustrate the enormous pressure felt on both sides of the negotiating table to reach a meaningful agreement, while at the same time preserving national political and economic interests.

Global Insight (Reino Unido)