Warsaw 2013: Controversial results open the debate of UN meetings effectiveness
WARSAW 2013
Controversial results open the debate of UN meetings effectiveness
The UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) has held this year’s climate change conference in Warsaw (Poland) from the 11th to the 23rd of November. According to its organisers it has “concluded successfully”. There have been different decisions adopted, including an accord aimed to slow down de-forestation. Despite its apparent achievements, there are many skeptics that argue that these meetings are not tackling the real problem of climate change. A reflection of this is the walk out of several NGO’s during the last day of the meetings (Green Peace International, Oxfam, WWF and Friends of the earth amongst them). Why have they adopted this position if according to the UNFCCC it has been a successful conference?
The results of the COP19 have been controversial to the eyes of civil society. According to Annie Petsonk, International counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, nations “are headed toward a C to C-minus for the overall effort”. It seems that the general perception is that these meetings don’t achieve results. Despite this, it is unfair not to mention that there have been agreements like the International Law for loss and damage, aimed at helping countries from the impact of “extreme weather events”. Another keystone of the conference has been the Deforestation Plan. It provides economic incentives for countries to reduce the emissions that come from deforestation. Countries like the U.S, Britain and Norway have collectively pledged $280 million towards the effort. So it is visible that small changes have been made, and from a realistic point of view, it is very hard for representatives of nations to agree on global policies considering their different economic and cultural backgrounds. A perfect example of economic interests affecting the development of environmental policies is the Kyoto Protocol. In this case, the most pollutant country at the time of its creation (the U.S) rejected to ratify as it “would seriously harm the economy”, arguing that it did not require developing nations like China or India to reduce their emissions.
The COP19 is considered to be an agreement to succeed the Protocol, which expires in 2020, so it is understandable why many civil society organisations are skeptic. These groups described the conference as a “farce” and in a joint statement they stated: “we are now focusing on mobilizing people to push our governments to take leadership for serious climate action”. They suggest the best way to deal environmental problems is by changing the current energy and food systems, rather than minimal policies like the ones suggested at the UNFCCC meetings. This requires radical changes in the current economic system, so a conflict between civil society and governments and industry is likely to arise if climate change is to be tackled in a realistic manner. From what the UNFCCC has to offer, it is visible that there are two potential channels for environmental improvement: environmental activism and international governance (Buttel, 2003). International governance governs the issue in accordance with the current political-economic chessboard, while environmental activism seems more promising as it aims to redefine the chessboard.
The Warsaw climate conference has been a success to some and a “mockery” for others. Some positive policies have been agreed, however much more effort is needed. The only clear conclusion is that there is a disconnection between civil society and international regulatory bodies. The future of sustainability and climate change relies in the result of the conflict between these two positions.
Comments Off on Warsaw 2013: Controversial results open the debate of UN meetings effectiveness /
11 Dec 2013
por
alvarohernandez
IMSD /
.png)
].gif)
.png){kind=logo}
].png)
].png)
].png)
].png)
.png){kind=logo}
].png)
.png){kind=logo}
