A summit in crisis

It is a summit in crisis. These are not our words - that is how the UN Environment Program's Achim Steiner described the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, yesterday. It is plain for anyone following developments in Copenhagen that the summit is not going anywhere in terms of real pledges, real progress.

Delegates from 193 nations are in Copenhagen to negotiate an agreement on curbing greenhouse gas emissions, in order to prevent dangerous climate change. The crux of the matter is that developing nations want rich nations to cut emissions by at least 25 percent by 2020. But rich nations are reluctant to go so far and want developing countries to curb emissions too.

Such fundamental differences mean that there is widespread uncertainty over the shape of any eventual deal. Global warming is a real threat, but the world must come together instead of bickering over emissions cuts. It is grossly unfair for the developed world to expect more or less the same commitments from the developing world.

In fact, some developing countries have repeatedly complained during the two weeks of high-handed treatment by the Danish hosts and the West in general.

Such discrimination and bullying on a matter so vital does not augur well for the planet's long-term health.

The slow pace of progress in this sphere is frustrating to say the least.

Developing countries have every reason to be disappointed because they have invested a lot of time in the Kyoto Protocol discussions which had been going on for four years. World leaders have to be personally committed to change the status quo. There has to be some give and take. Both the US and China, the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, have indicated they might make concessions.

We hope the world leaders' summit at Copenhagen would be able to make substantial gains and formulate an agreement.

There is a debate on whether we are too late for such an agreement. There are fears it might not prevent a catastrophic 3 Celcius temperature rise. A document prepared by the UN Climate Convention Secretariat confirms that current pledges on cutting greenhouse gas emissions are almost certainly not enough to keep the rise in the global average temperature within that level.

Moreover, an agreement on paper is not enough. There should be more financial commitments, especially from the First World. In fact, finance has emerged as an issue more likely to make or break a deal than emission pledges themselves. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said her administration was prepared to help establish funding of US$ 100 billion a year for developing countries, which is a step in the right direction. The catch? The deal that emerges from Copenhagen must meet 'US requirements'.

Again, it boils down to the mismatch between the interests and goals of the developed and developing worlds.

The stark message for world leaders at Copenhagen is that the proposals on the table - especially from industrialized countries - fall far short of what the world urgently needs. The developed countries should accept legally binding greenhouse gas emissions cuts and there should be a mechanism to monitor the same.

World leaders should also decide what works best - direct aid for emissions cuts or carbon trading. With the Kyoto Protocol's current targets expiring in 2012, we hope that a deal that addresses all these concerns and takes urgent steps to save the planet emerges from the chaos in Copenhagen. It may not be as bad as the scenes from the Roland Emmerich apocalypse saga '2012', but time is running out for Planet Earth and its inhabitants. Now is the time for concrete action.

--------

A curious intermission

The European Commission (EC) has adopted a proposal to temporarily suspend the GSP Plus trade concession to Sri Lanka. The GSP Plus, which gives 16 developing countries access to EU markets under preferential conditions, is important for the garment industry, though it will certainly be able to go on without it. This decision was announced on December 17, which coincided with the nominations day for the Presidential Poll in Sri Lanka.

Contrary to propaganda by certain elements, this does not mean the duty free benefits given to Sri Lankan exporters will be withdrawn immediately. This is because it would take at least six months for the suspension to become totally effective. In the meantime, the EU and Sri Lanka will have a dialogue on issues pertaining to GSP Plus. The tariff concession is highly likely to be restored after these consultations.

The other significant fact is that EU members have "two months" to decide on it, according to the EU website and news reports. This time period coincides with the Presidential Election on January 26, 2010. The EU's period of contemplation has somehow matched the Presidential Elections window, a curious coincidence at best. We cannot surmise whether this is intentional or incidental, but we hope that the issue can be resolved in favour of our garment industry regardless of developments in the political landscape.

After all, innocent garment workers deserve a deal that would benefit their industry and the country at large.