World Environment Magazine: The Arab World in the Post-Kyoto Regime, May 2008

by Wael Hmaidan

Previously, Greenpeace campaigner for the Arab World. Currently Executive Director of IndyACT and head of the ‘Arab Climate Campaign’ (www.arabclimate.org)

The UN conference on climate change was held in Bali, Indonesia from 3-15 December 2007. This conference resulted in a number of decisions, including finalizing the Adaptation Fund under the Protocol, a decision on reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries, and outcomes on technology transfer, the Kyoto Protocol’s flexible mechanisms, the adverse effects of combating climate change, and various administrative/methodological issues. However, the most important item of this COP/MOP was achieving a roadmap for the post-2012 regime, after the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period expires.

Agreeing on this ‘roadmap’ in Bali was crucial if we wanted to avoid extreme climate change impacts. According to the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), extreme climate change impacts could be avoided if we keep global temperature rise below 2ºC (already we are experiencing 0.8ºC increase). This means we need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, responsible for climate change, between 60 to 80% compared to 1990 levels by 2050. Furthermore, we need to stabilize greenhouse gases emission increase by 2015.

In a nutshell, what this means is that we only have around 10 years or less to seriously change the way our society functions. Otherwise we will not be able to avoid the horrific impacts of climate change. The problem is that there is still no global political commitment to follow the scientific findings, and to achieve that we need a ratified new global treaty by 2012. Now knowing that the Kyoto protocol took 5 years to draft, and another 7 years to be ratified and still contains many loopholes, having a new air-tight global treaty in 2 years (ie by 2009) to be ratified within another 3 years (ie by 2012) is a difficult task.

Nevertheless, in Bali, on the afternoon of December 15, 24 hours after the conference’s scheduled conclusion, ministers and other high-level officials agreed on the ‘Bali roadmap’. This roadmap provides guidance and direction for a series of meetings over the next two years to be concluded with a comprehensive framework for the post-2012 period at the climate negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2009.

The agreement on the ‘Bali Roadmap’ did come at a cost. In order to secure everyone’s commitment to a post-2012 regime, especially the United States’, several compromises have been made. One such compromise is not setting clear long-term targets within the roadmap. The EU proposed including the targets set by the IPCC in the text, but it was opposed by Canada, Russia and few developing countries. A roadmap without a clear destination can end anywhere. So in the coming two years of text negotiations for the new treaty it is crucial to make sure that it includes clear long-term targets in conjunction with the scientific findings of the IPCC.

These two years of text negotiations should also include commitments for new countries not included in the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol so far commits only a group of major developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5% compared to 1990 levels by 2012. Such a modest commitment will not be sufficient in the post-2012 commitment period. The developed world on its own will not be able to tackle the impeccable task at hand to limit global temperature increase well below 2ºC. Other countries should bare part of the responsibility as well. Countries like Saudi Arabia, who have built their economies on the oil profits, should take direct responsibility for climate change.

Unfortunately, fossil-fuel rich countries have not only been neglecting their responsibility towards the issue, but some countries, like Saudi Arabia have been actively hindering concrete actions against climate change on regional and international levels. Since the start of the climate negotiations in the 90s, Saudi Arabia has played a key role in shaping international climate policy. This interference was mainly to insure that its oil trade is not affected. Many loopholes in the Kyoto Protocol were introduced by Saudi Arabia and the lobby of the oil industry.

According to a study by WWF on the role of OPEC countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, in the Kyoto process, they have opposed greenhouse gas reductions, and disrupted whole negotiation process. This has created some resentment and frustration on the part of G77 delegates.

Saudi Arabia is not particularly well viewed by G77 delegates because of the tactics it has used in the negotiations. The Islamic Kingdom has tried on several occasions to control the process and agenda items, and misrepresented the G77 positions in some forums. These tactics have implications for all Parties, even OPEC member states. Saudi Arabia’s positions are not aligned with most OPEC countries interests to attract CDM projects, diversify their economies and reduce regulatory uncertainty. For many G77 groups such as the Least Developing Countries (LDCs), the African Group, Island States and other vulnerable developing countries the implications of such tactics are much more significant as issues that are important to them have not advanced because they were linked to OPEC issues such as response measures.

Saudi Arabia has also been controlling the position of the League of Arab States on this issue. Out of the 23 Arab countries, 11 are oil producing ones, and 4 of them are among the top 10 oil exporting countries in the World. This makes climate change and the reduction of fossil fuel use a very sensitive topic in the Arab League. At the moment, the Arab League has no policy on climate change, and no clear position for the post-2012 process. The only declaration related to the issue is the ‘Abu Dhabi Declaration on Environment and Energy’ in 2003. This declaration in its first 3 decisions state that Arab countries have the right to develop their natural resources, particularly oil and gas; supply of oil and gas to international markets should be continuous and unobstructed; and that industrialised countries should not adopt policies leading to a reduction in demand for oil and gas and harm the revenues of producing countries and their development.

The declaration made sure that the position of Arab States is supportive of the oil industry and its trade. The few items related to climate change in the declaration were focused more on adapting to the impacts of climate change, rather than avoiding its impacts by reducing greenhouse gases.

Again, we have less than 2 years to draft a new text for a new treaty that can save us from horrific impacts of climate change. This small window of action is being felt by governments, parties, organizations and individuals everywhere; everywhere except the Arab World. Nevertheless, this could be changed. In the past two International Demonstration Days on climate change there was no participation from the Arab public.

This year six Arab countries participated for the first time in the ‘International Day of Action against Climate Change’ to demand Arab countries to take stronger action against this global problem. NGOs, governmental institutes and individuals from Lebanon, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Palestine and UAE joined citizens from more than 80 countries who participated in this International event. In Beirut, and despite the tense political situation and bad weather, more than 2000 individuals went down to the streets to participate in a symbolic 3km walk against climate change. The number of participants is similar to having 150,000 individuals participating in the United States, if we take the size of the population into account.

Arab civil society is starting to see the threats of climate change more urgent than the different political problems plaguing the region. Because climate change amplifies the problems of poverty and water security, it is useless to work on them without tackling climate change first. For example, in the Arab region, the main climate change impact will be on our water resources and agricultural land. Knowing that agriculture is the biggest economical sector in the region, and that we are already the most water scarce area in the world, we can not afford to ignore climate change any more.

Therefore, the Arab League should be leading the fight against climate change, and demanding a strong post-2012 regime with clear long-term targets. Saudi Arabia should not hinder the negotiations for the new treaty like it did for the Kyoto Protocol. On the contrary, Saudi Arabia has the chance to save the World by accepting its responsibility and the responsibility of all rich fossil-fuel producing states towards this issue. If a product in the market is harmful to the consumer, the producers usually carry the responsibility of their own products. So, why in the case of climate change, the oil and coal producing countries, especially OPEC who have been making billions and billions of dollars out of their oil are not taking any responsibility for climate change?

Tackling climate change does not mean that the oil rich countries in the region will lose all their resources. First, climate change threats might be more costly to our economy than the benefits of the oil. Egypt, for example, will lose more than 30% of its grain agriculture, 20% of the Nile Delta will be underwater if Mediterranean Sea level rises by 1 meter, and up to 75% of the Nile river water might disappear by the end of the century due to climate change. Knowing that Egypt's economy and society is based on the agricultural sector, the Nile Delta and Nile River, the benefits from the oil and gas resources will never be able to compensate.

Second, although the Arab World oil is a major contributor to climate change, the Arab World can actually solve the problem as well. Our region has the most renewable energy resources in the world. Renewable energy technology, which is the alternative to the use of oil and coal and the only solution to climate change, can be our future oil. If we use less than 5% of our deserts to build concentrated solar power plants, we can actually produce enough electricity satisfy the needs of the whole planet. We can again export energy to the world, but this time clean and non-exhaustible energy. This might sound like a dream, but there are actually a lot of people already working on it. Germany and other European countries have already conducted studies on how to get solar energy from North Africa to Europe. There are already projects under the development, but they are not enough and require the support of our governments.

Third, solving the climate change problem does not mean that we need to stop using fossil fuels completely. We only need to reduce the use of oil and coal between 50% and 80% by 2050, and we will never stop needing oil. Oil is a finite resource and will end in the future. If the oil rich countries reduce the use of oil then they will prolong the life of their resources, and thus have a more stable economy on the long run.

We can only benefit from seriously tackling climate change as we have everything to lose if we do not do anything about it. The Arab World needs to get its act together and start showing concern about climate change. Hopefully, at the next International Demonstration Day for Climate Change in December, thousands of Arabs will hit the streets and voice that concern.

 

 

 

hghgg