The second point is that for all that CETA has more attention than the Canada-China Investment Treaty, it does not have enough either.

Unlike the Canada-China Investment Treaty, this trade deal is one the Prime Minister has not kept under a barrel.  It has already been over-hyped by PMO with Stephen Harper claiming the deal will bring $12 billion worth of benefit toCanada. Even though this figure was called into question by an assessment conducted by the European Commission, a study that put the benefits at a more conservative $3-6 billion, Mr. Harper continues to use the exaggerated figure.

The proposed Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union (known as CETA) is an ambitious attempt to cover huge aspects of our economy – impacting health care costs, supply management in agriculture, procurement, arts and culture to name a few.  As well, like the Canada-China Investment Treaty it would create opportunities for arbitration for claims for the EU investors against Canada and vice versa. It has been on a three year negotiation track with the goal of concluding negotiations by the end of this year. But Matthias Brinkmann, head of the European Union Delegation to Canada, thinks the deadline may not be met.  Speaking in Halifax on October 22, 2012,  Brinkmann confirmed that little to no progress has been made on most of the key issues.  The issues identified as among those Brinkmann describes as leaving the most difficult until last include patent protection for pharmaceuticals, procurement rules for public projects, supply management in agriculture, rules of origin and investor-state provisions.

That’s a long list to get done by the end of this year.  And then there’s the approval process.  The EU must vote to approve and so must each parliament of the 27 member states. And some member states are already angry with Canada over more restrictive Visa requirements (Czech Republic, Hungary and Bulgaria) and quite a lot of parliamentarians, certainly all those in green Parties in the EU Parliament itself, as well as Germany, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France, UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Greece, Spain, Italy, to name a few, are concerned about Canada’s efforts to over-turn the Carbon Fuel Standard, disrupt global climate negotiations, undermine the Kyoto Protocol,  our appalling obstruction in June 2011 at the Rotterdam Convention asbestos discussions, to name a few.  Even if this agreement were negotiated between Canada and the EU, approval is far from a sure thing.  One thing the Prime Minister cares about (CETA) could be sabotaged by his record on things he thought didn’t matter (Kyoto, climate, asbestos).

Take it as read that the Green Party will support the civil society groups that are opposed to higher prices for pharmaceutical drugs by granting greater patent protection to EU Big Pharma. We will oppose any agreement that undermines our ability to ensure municipal water systems remain public, or that undercut the Canadian arts and culture sector.  We will insist that any new trade agreement be about fair trade and a fair deal for Canadians.

There is no need to rush the negotiations to a desperate last push this year.  Given the EU approval process, it is more important to get the right deal than a rushed deal.

Elizabeth May is the Leader of the Green Party of Canada and the Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands.
Originally printed in Embassy News.

The post Get the right deal, not a rushed deal appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On December 22, in The Guardian ran free-lancer Mark Lynas’ assessment: ‘How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room’ www.guardian.co.uk/profile/marklynas. But even being ‘in the room’ in the bizarre, last minute, non-UN process to force a deal doesn’t give the full picture. There is more than enough blame to go around.

One starts with the host government. Much was at stake, but Denmark’s diplomatic efforts contributed to failure. The poisoning of the negotiating climate began on Day 2 with the leaked draft Danish text—a rich countries’ agreement to kill the Kyoto Protocol. Further problems were the bizarre logistics and security mess. It was egregious enough to accredit 40,000 participants for a space that accommodated 15,000 (and the UN Climate secretariat must answer for much of this mess), but when security barred members of country delegations from the building, the negotiating climate worsened. China’s head of delegation was reported to have been denied access for the first few days. At times, Brazil’s senior negotiator was unable to get in the room.

As soon as the High Level segment began and Prime Minister Rasmussen took over chairing duties from Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard, things went from bad to worse. The negotiators had worked all night agreeing to a new text on the Kyoto Protocol. As Minister Hedegaard left the chair, she noted a new text would be circulated soon from the Presidency. The question hanging in the room was ‘where is the text we negotiated all night?’ As she retreated, Prime Minister Rasmussen refused to allow the question to be answered, so keen was he on keeping the set speeches to take centre stage and run on time. In this brief public display the extent of the hostilities was clear. The head of the Chinese delegation spoke of the issue being a ‘matter of trust with the host country.’ Brazil and India agreed, the head of the Indian delegation still being quite flustered by the problems he encountered getting through security. South Africa and the Sudan, speaking for the group of 130 developing countries, also spoke of a lack of transparency in denying the primacy of the negotiated text in favour of some new text from the chair. Prime Minister Rasmussen ploughed ahead, ignoring the flag of Venezuela, cutting off none other than Hugo Chavez who had already joined his negotiators in the room.

The diplomatic gaffes continued the next night as leaders from around the world were invited to attend dinner with the Queen of Denmark. In an effort to get key leaders in the room for an informal chat, Prime Minister Rasmussen invited what he considered were the most important countries. Rumour has it he forgot to invite China. So, I do not doubt that what Mark Lynas saw looked like China wrecking a deal, but the wrecking started with a bizarre number of affronts to China before the world leaders arrived.

Blame also goes to Canada. In spring 2006 when Environment Minister Rona Ambrose was President of the COP, post Montreal’s hosting of COP11, Canada made itself the ‘bad boy’ of climate talks. With Canada actually chairing the negotiations, Ambrose announced Canada was not going to even attempt to reach our Kyoto target. Ever since, Canada has expanded the space for bad behaviour. Countries could be very uncooperative and counter-productive and still not be as bad as Canada. At the same time, in negotiation after negotiation, we laid down our square brackets (in international negotiations, applying square brackets to a draft text indicates disagreement with a phrase or section), blocking consensus on multiple issues. The reason Canada kept winning the Fossil of the Day award in negotiations, at COP 12, 13, 14 and 15, was that we were actively obstructing progress. And we continued being counter-productive right through the COP15 talks, winning, once again, the Colossal Fossil of the Year award.

On top of that, the US let everyone down. If there had been any hope, it was that President Obama would bring some flexibility to negotiations. Instead, he delivered a speech that had elements of Gary Cooper in ‘High Noon.’ It led to a forced, back-room effort to achieve something that could be used to appease a domestic US audience. So too was the United Nations hijacked to the US Senate and Obama’s desire to pass the Waxman-Markey bill. What now? Thanks to the round of all-night negotiations after the leaders had climbed on their jets for home, the so- called Copenhagen Accord was not the decision of COP15. Through the UN fudge of saying COP15 ‘took note’ of the five country deal, the commitments by China to allow verification of its reductions, and the financial commitments of wealthy countries, have been preserved as somehow meaningful. At the same time, the COP15 process did not allow the back-room accord to kill the Kyoto Protocol.

Copenhagen was a disaster, but it was not an unmitigated one. The negotiations continue. Civil society has found its champions, in the small low-lying island states, in African nations that argued that 2 degrees was too much in global temperature rise. We have a hellish hard task ahead to achieve the real carbon cuts that are urgently needed. Copenhagen was supposed to be the end of the road. Instead, it was a nasty pot hole.

This report was previously published in Embassy Magazine, who have kindly granted permission for its inclusion in Island Tides.

Elizabeth May, OC, is the author of Losing Confidence—Power, Politics and the Crisis in Canadian Democracy (McClelland and Stewart, 2009) and is the federal leader of the Green Party of Canada. ShelivesinSidney,BC.

The post Copenhagen Reflections: was anything accomplished? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

There is always a certain amount of last minute media coverage about such events, but very little context setting. The fact is that Canada and virtually every other nation on earth signed and ratified the Framework Convention in 1992. It committed the world to reductions in greenhouse gases such that their build up in the atmosphere would be halted before they could become ‘dangerous.’ After seventeen years of further meetings and negotiations (including the 1997 meeting in Kyoto and the protocol produced there) we are rapidly approaching the danger zone. We are already experiencing the loss of millions of square kilometres of Arctic ice, the retreat of glaciers around the world, persistent drought in much of the world, unprecedented shifts in rainfall patterns and sea level rise.

There are many excuses and reasons for the failure to act over the last two decades. Some nations, mostly within the European Union, have achieved serious reductions. They have done so with improvements in their economy.

Germany is rapidly taking over the world market as provider of solar, wind and other green economy technologies, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs. China is catching up, this year investing $600 billion in green technologies. Sweden has de-coupled carbon reductions from economic growth, growing its economy while cutting greenhouse gases. Yet, globally we have only taken baby steps toward the goal of avoiding dangerous levels of greenhouse gases.

The prospects for Copenhagen look better now than they did one month ago. We may owe Stephen Harper and his government a debt of gratitude. Harper’s pronouncement after the APEC summit that the negotiations were doomed to failure may have been the catalyst for a number of significant rescue attempts.

Significantly, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Brazilian President Lula teamed up to make a compelling appeal to industrialized and developing nations to take on meaningful targets. Brazil committed to over 30% reductions in GHG below 1990 levels by 2020 through arresting deforestation. Lula noted, however, that to make this target, Brazil needed financial assistance from the industrialized world.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon took the unusual step of attending the Commonwealth summit to plead for movement, singling out Canada as an impediment to progress. So too did low-lying island Commonwealth nations target Canada, with some suggesting we should be expelled from the Commonwealth. Even Her Majesty the Queen took aim at Canada. With the news that both President Obama and President Hu of China would attend the climate talks, our Prime Minister finally caved and agreed to join the over 100 leaders already committed to attend. The commitment of Obama and Hu increased hope that an agreement was possible.

However, these first few days have not gone well. Day 2 saw the revelation of a secret draft text from the US, UK and Denmark, proposing to sideline the concerns of the developing world, scrap the Kyoto Framework and move forward in a fashion that breaks faith with the poorest on the planet. This leaked text has led to a mood of distrust and anger within the negotiations. I am going to share a fragment of an email from a colleague already in Copenhagen. I am keeping his identity confidential, only noting that he is on a government delegation.

The issues on the table are very complicated—technically, economically, equitably and morally and politically. The Parties are far apart on the text—mitigation, adaptation, finance, tech transfer—all are part of the package and depend on each other—this is more like the Doha round and the WTO than climate! But unlike the trade talks there is a disaster clock ticking…

The mood is ugly, distrustful. The Danish police and security service are scared stiff. They raided some NGO residences today and confiscated lots of stuff they said could be used for civil disobedience.

I am normally a calm guy and not prone to anxiety but this place has me jumping. Next Thursday and Friday will be wild and unpredictable with over 100 heads of government speaking. There are 40,000 people on the attendees list. There are 5,000 journalists here. The Bela Centre capacity where the COP is being held is 15,000. The COP is chaired by the Danish Environment Minister. She and the Prime Minister cannot stand each other and do not talk (so it is widely twittered). The responsibility for bringing all this together rests with the Danes. Some optimists say that the G2 will come next week (Obama and Hu) and strike a deal that everybody can take it or leave it. But this is not a Yes or No deal; it is endlessly nuanced. Even if they embrace each other and everybody cheers all the critical details will remain to be worked out…let alone ratified and implemented. I cannot believe there is anything like this on earth—it is heroic in a way but mostly it is frightening!

So as I leave for Copenhagen, we have a clear description. The moment is perilous. We stand between heroism and disaster. You need not sit back and wait. Please continue to keep up the pressure. Post comments on news media comment websites and blogs, write to the newspapers and phone the Prime Minister’s Office (613-992-4211). To stay up to date on the negotiations, sign up for daily reports from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, www.iisd.ca/climate/cop15/. These are pithy, no-nonsense reports prepared through a non- government ENB team of graduate students working within the International Institute for Sustainable Development. For activist news check out the www.350.org site or international Friends of the Earth. To keep abreast of the science Salt Spring Island’s own Dorothy Cutting maintains a great site, www.westcoastclimateequity.org. And I will be reporting daily on the www.elizabethmay.ca site.

Realistically, what are the options for the outcome in Copenhagen? A successful agreement will mean that the world stops the growth in greenhouse gases so that they peak no later than 2015 and begin their decline from there. Overshooting 2015 could commit the world to a catastrophic runaway climate crisis.

Failure in Copenhagen could look like two things: the decision of all leaders to call it a failure and admit they fell short. This is less likely than the more dangerous form of failure: a happy photo op of world leaders smiling and calling their failure a ‘good first step.’ We are now seventeen years past ‘good first steps.’ The citizens of this world, our children and grandchildren will thank us only for embracing real success.

Elizabeth E. May is the leader of the Green Party of Canada, candidate in Saanich Gulf Islands and Officer of the Order of Canada.

The post Tracking Copenhagen appeared first on Elizabeth May.