Copenhagen… and beyond?

Evaluating Public Participation in the UNFCCC process

Margreet Wewerinke, Nord-Sud XXI

“Copenhagen” COP 15/ CMP 5 (SBI 31, SBSTA 31, AWG-KP 10, AWG-LCA 8)

• Over 10,500 delegates (e.g. 273 United States vs. 10 Bahamas), 13,500 observers, 3,000 media representatives

• 120 Heads of State and Government• Over 1,000 official, informal and group meetings

among Parties• Over 200 side events and over 220 exhibits from

Parties, UN, IGOs and civil society• “Klimaforum” in separate venue; 50,000 participants

What was at stake?

• Bali Action Plan (decision CP/13), 2007: AWG-LCA on mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer, finance:

“2. Decides that the process shall be conducted under a subsidiary body under the Convention, hereby established and known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention, that shall complete its work in 2009 and present the outcome of its work to the Conference of the Parties for adoption at its fifteenth session”

• AWG-KP (since 2005): idem.

Almaty Guidelines (15) “facilitate the participation of those constituencies that are

most directly affected”

• More than 50% of deaths due to climate change-induced disasters in LDCs

• 90% of the people exposed to climate disasters in developing world

• Around 76% GHGs emitted by OECD countries

• Impacts of mitigation (reforestation, biofuels, landuse-

change…) and adaptation

Almaty Guidelines (2) “bringing different opinions and expertise to the process and increasing transparency

and accountability. ...”

• Media, alliance-building, side-events, actions, channelling information…

• Influencing text: access to…

- meetings (physical, broadcasts), texts, delegates

- cf. UN Human Rights Council• ‘Best practice’ indigenous peoples: “free, prior and

informed consent before adopting and implementing measures that may affect them.”

What happened?• Time restrictions, secondary badges, police

powers…• Wednesday night 2am – 4am: “cleaning-up”

negotiating venue of NGO delegates• Wednesday – Saturday: a total of 23 decisions

adopted by the COP and the CMP - Decision 2/CP.15 (noted “Copenhagen Accord”) - Bali Roadmap negotiations?

Criticism… “Rejecting undemocratic processes and unjust outcomes”

• “We reject the Copenhagen Accord as the result of an exclusive, un-transparent and undemocratic process … [ignoring] years of work in the legitimate UN processes. … African countries should not lend their legitimacy to a document that threatens upwards of 3.9°C of warming (or around 6°C warming in Africa). To this end, … we will petition our governments to reject or disassociate themselves from the Accord.”

Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance, April 2010

The Aarhus Pillars and negotiation texts: potential synergies

• Access to information - What and how much info to gather at what cost? How will people affected get access?• Public participation - How to build up capacity locally? Using Aarhus

Centres to facilitate input from those most affected ?• Access to justice - Adapting existing mechanisms or creating new

ones?