Just a few years I had posted an article on the Conference of the Parties (COP) to be held in Copenhagen.
From 2009 to 2015, few changes were noted on the different topics regularly submitted to the negotiators. Developing countries whine about the same concerns, while developed countries are chanting the same promises and the same antiphons for not taking realistic and non-binding commitments for countries and the most vulnerable populations.
It is true that the United States of Obama showed better provision. It is also true that China is committed to further efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It is true that the European Union take a leadership capable of giving meaning to a "Nobel Peace Prize".
And Africa in all this? I prefer to repost the article posted in 2009 rather than update it. Read only!
Simply replace Copenhagen by Paris, and 2009 by 2015. Then, tell me if you see big changes.
I'm optimistic, I sometimes still be sad.
NB: French version (2009) available in this blog.
NB: French version (2009) available in this blog.
The
« African climate »
They
will go into negotiations in Copenhagen in December 2009. They will be a very
small group of official representatives of their countries. They will attend a
number of negotiating sessions, but do not really participate as they will be
exhausted by the debates circling, each knowing beforehand what the content of
the final report.
Who
are they? Southern negotiators, particularly those of Africa. What difficulties
they meet to mobilize, to constitute the national delegations of negotiations
... What will they have to make, again and again, to be able to join national
delegations. However, once there, their main concern will be to see the
official opening to end as quickly as possible so that the minister or other
head of delegation countries retires at the earliest, by entrusting them later.
Number
of African representatives did not follow debates. They have lots of shopping
to do and friendly and parental visits previously scheduled. Their very limited
staff did not allow them also to keep the pace with the European and American
delegations consist of dozens of representatives, with perfect coordination and
informational upgrade system and decision-making developed very well.
Never
mind. The real problem is not there. It is not really useful to expect
international meetings (COP, Intercessions, etc.) to develop national and
regional positions. It is a matter of consultation and awareness of national
interests and strategic issues for the continent.
EU
delegations speak with one voice (even the members have other "shots
windows"). North Americans harmonize their positions (though, when voting,
they distinguish their voices). By itself, China is a significant economic
weight; as well as India and Brazil. We can not ignore their positions. Although
these actors in the South tend to "get closer" of Africa and others
in the G77, the realities and challenges for them and Africa are not the same.
It is a friendship of circumstance in which the continent derives no strategic
advantage. Africa only serves as a foil.
Stumbling
blocks in the debate
The
United States, followed as always by Europe (EU), refuses to make a step
towards the post-Kyoto. The issue of funding - and technology transfer - is
also on standby. Among other reasons, developed countries invite developing
countries to "establish, at least, national strategies to reduce
GHGs." The height of meanness can not exceed this threshold.
But
many African countries have not yet understood the real issue behind this
blackmail. Indeed, developed countries are to require developing countries to
stop all industrial development, just be limited to the production of raw
materials. They'll take care of the rest with dedication, since they will
voluntarily on behalf of humanity, marking their generous contribution to
sustainable development.
“Industrialized
countries would like to see developing countries to compile at least national
emission reduction strategies, before they put any money on the table.” Ivo De
Boer, at the World Economic Forum (WEF). Annual Meeting of the New Champions,
Dalian, China, 10-12 Sept. 2009.
It means: "Africans
and other southern countries whose kidneys are not strong, then let us do.
Mobilize your natural and mineral resources. Place them beside the road. We
will come and collect them. We will transform them to create added value. We'll
bring them to you selling them with packaging and 3D logos.
We
will promote through our agencies, our cinema and our cable channels. Our
experts will teach you how to redistribute these, sparking appetite and dream
among miners in Niger, among forest workers from Congo, among cocoa producers
in Côte d'Ivoire, Burkina Faso's cotton grower or other farmers in Senegal and
elsewhere. "
"Do
not bother. Do you tire more. With your resources and our technology, we will
work in synergy for a better world." This is what recommends this language
of " hieroglyphics ".
Another
sticking point is found to be the reduction threshold. No major player among
the big polluters, except China, is willing to make the effort required to
reach the threshold of 15-21% reduction compared to the emission level in 1990,
which would not exceed the critical threshold of 2 ° C.
A
total realism invites to understand that we must concretely expect anything
from governments of industrialized countries. The issue of GHG reduction and
limitation of climate impacts is politically sensitive for them. Similarly, it
is strategically far from the existential concerns of African populations,
given the climate of insecurity prevailing in some countries, of bad governance
that takes the breath and democracy that still has trouble anchor.
In
the North, it is the international firms that actually decide the posture to
adopt. In the south, it is the politicians who think and decide everything.
Here, reflection is not necessarily extended, even "national
communications" are theoretically inclusive. Southern Civil Society,
consulted from time to time, does not necessarily have the ability to influence
that could be expected of him. Its resources and its partners are North, his
attitude to monitoring and warning is seen more as an echo of the civil society
and North embassies as an attitude that is actually motivated by the awareness
of local realities.
POSITION
In
our opinion, it is useless to have international meetings for which it is
emitted enough greenhouse gas to promote the sustainability of malaria and thus
justify the countless fighting fund against anything that could reduce
dependence on ... "civilizing mission ".
A
practical alternative is that African countries through the African Union, set
up new rules that would apply to all companies established on the continent.
The
carbon tax is to be paid, not more political way, through pretenses market
mechanisms (CDM, carbon exchange, etc.) but rather directly and annual basis by
companies operating in Africa. This requires to differentiate the approach
between "African" and those foreign companies; between companies that
export raw materials and those that process them.
Globalization
does not mean subjection to a unilateral rationality; let alone adopt blissful
and irrational positions. Thus, we invite Africans to "clean up their
yards" before "dance to the music of others." One thing is sure,
an "empty bag can not stand" and, by dint of returning to the same place for the same purpose, we will lose... north and south.
