A leaked Danish document at the UN climate conference has provoked angry criticism from developing countries and activists who fear it would shift more of the burden to curb greenhouse gases on poorer countries.
The emergence of the draft text for a deal from the Danes caused an angry response from campaigners, who warned it favoured rich countries and risked squeezing poor nations out of the negotiations.
The so-called 'Danish text', if ratified, would hand more power to rich countries and sideline the United Nations in future climate change negotiations.
The Danish draft proposal circulating at the 192-country conference chips away at the wall between what developed and developing nations can be expected to do to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
It would allow rich countries to cut fewer emissions while poorer nations would face tougher limits on greenhouse gases and more conditions on money available to adapt.
After the Danish text surfaced, UN officials moved to allay concerns that the 13-page draft document was an alternative to the official documents on the table for negotiation at the talks.
The UN’s climate chief, Yvo de Boer, said: “This was an informal paper ahead of the conference given to a number of people for the purposes of consultation.”
"The draft Copenhagen agreement is profoundly destructive - it violates the principles of the UN negotiations," Andy Atkins, executive director of Friends of the Earth, said in an e-mailed statement.
Connie Hedegaard, the Danish minister who is chairwoman of the talks, yesterday denied there was a specific proposal for the final outcome of the two-week meeting. "There isn't one text; there are lots of different issues circulating where we try to consult with different parties," Ms Hedegaard said. "The draft text that might eventually be accepted here is for a later stage."
Diplomats from developing countries and climate activists have complained that the Danish hosts have pre-empted the negotiations with their draft proposal, prepared before the two-week conference began.
"The behind-the-scenes negotiation tactics under the Danish presidency have been focusing on pleasing the rich and powerful countries rather than serving the majority of states who are demanding a fair and ambitious solution," said Kim Carstensen, head of the climate initiative for the environmental group WWF.
A counter-proposal attributed to China would extend the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which required 37 industrial nations to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming by an average 5 percent by 2012, compared with 1990 levels.
The Chinese text would incorporate specific new, deeper targets for the industrialized world for a further five to eight years. Developing countries, on the other hand, including China, would be covered by a separate agreement that envisions their taking actions to control emissions, but not in the same legally binding way. No targets would be specified for them.
Poorer nations believe the two-track approach would best preserve the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" recognized by the Kyoto Protocol.
"It has no validity," key European Union negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger said, speaking specifically of the Danish proposal. "It's only a piece of paper. The only texts that have validity here are those which people negotiated."
IFA president Padraig Walshe today criticised proposals contained in the leaked document, saying they ignore carbon sequestering potential of permanent pastures and renewable crop production.
“Rearch carried out by the Environmental Protection Agency indicates that these [Irish] pastures could store up to 5.8 tonnes of carbon per hectare each year…it is unjustifiable for climate change negotiators to table a proposed agreement which ignores this carbon sequestering potential”.
The ‘Danish text’ proposes that developed countries would reduce emissions by at least 80 per cent over the next four decades, he said, adding “this is proposed at a time when 1.4 billion people are living in extreme poverty and demand for food is projected to increase by 70 per cent”.
Agencies