The President of Diplo Dietrich Kappeler, welcomed all participants. In his welcoming remarks he gave a short overview of the history of Diplo Foundation.

Jovan Kurbalija, Director of the Diplo Foundation, welcomed all saying that Diplo has the tradition to annually organize a Conference. The topic chosen for this year was not difficult to decide on, since it is a topic that is likely to dominate discussions for the rest of 2008 and beyond. Climate Change Diplomacy is not a typical area of diplomacy, since it is a cross-cutting issue that involves all different aspects of society.

During this conference Climate Change Diplomacy will be discussed with Capital D as well as with small D. The choice of Malta as the location is also very appropriate, since Malta has a big diplomatic footprint on discussing Climate Change. The discussions held during the Conference will be chaired by Ambassador Michael Zammit Cutajar, Malta’s Ambassador for Climate Change. The Conference will also be held in “Second Life”.

Minister for Foreign Affairs of Malta, Hon. Dr. Michael Frendo officially opened the conference. In his address he noted Malta’s long commitment, exactly 20 years now, which started by raising it at the UN which led to a Joint Declaration on Climate Change making it a common concern of mankind. This is not a subject that can be tackled in isolation. It is a global issue of common concern which can be achieved by common action.

The effects of Climate Change can be dramatic and having effects in different sectors and areas. Among the many concerns is especially the concern for the rising sea levels which will threaten among others, the availability of drinking water and the need for adequate watermanagement. We have to adapt to the consequences of Climate Change and it is typical that Diplo Foundation is organizing this, since they have been working on the cutting edge of diplomacy from the beginning on.

Malta supports the coming together of multistakeholders, working within the context of the UN. The MFA of Malta has committed for the next 3 years the amount of Euro 25000

annually as seed money to the Diplo Foundation in trying to achieve that common action that is needed on the concern of Climate Change.

The Keynote speaker, H.E. Ambassador Michael Zammit Cutajar referred to the reports of the IPCC saying that human induced Climate Change is happening. The impacts are in general negative and it will be much cheaper to deal with it now then to wait until the full impact is visible. The question now has more to do with what, when and how much to do. According to the Ambassador negotiations are driven by science, but the motivations to act are highly variable. Important is to note that the impact of Climate Change is not related to the location of emission, for example small islands are very much outside the scope of scope of emissions, but highly susceptible to the impacts of Climate Change. Therefore emissions have to be reduced globally.

There were some examples shown of dramatic climatic changes in the recent years.

Ways of reacting to Climate Change are suggested in Mitigation and Adaptation. In Mitigation it is about keeping adaptation within manageable limits, for e.g. 2 degrees Centigrade. This is one measure used by the EU. However, since we know change will happen, wouldn’t it be better to unite behind adaptation?

When developing a mitigation strategy it has to be responsive, all inclusive, effective and fair (which is very difficult) and it has to be adequate.

Another factor that comes into play is who bears responsibility where there is historical responsibility and future responsibility. It would be better if common responsibility was the issue discussed. Within this sector the discussion also has to take into account capabilities and the opportunities in the spin-off effects of adaptation.

In the Mitigation strategy options involve national or sector levels, policies and a vision.

The Bali Action Plan in contrast to the Kyoto Protocol is inclusive, comprehensive, across sectors and as much on mitigation as on adaptation. It is however challenging and open to ‘agreed outcome’ and is also ambitious with the deadline being 2009.

There is Political framing necessary with environment policy taking into account economic interests and security concerns.

The conclusion is that the discussion of Climate Change has moved from science to Politics.

In reaction to questions the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Malta shared that the EU had taken courageous approaches toward lowering the level of fossil fuel use and the reduction of emissions by 20%. Malta has looked into alternative energy in the form of wind energy. The aim is to create an international market for energy renewable technology. EU is one of the leaders in this area in decisions taken looking at leadership and technology

The session was chaired by Ambassador Michael Zammit Cutajar, the Maltese Ambassador for Climate Change, formerly Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC. 

Four papers were presented as follows:

• “Contraction and Convergence – The Proportionate Response to Climate Change” by Mr Aubrey Meyer of the Global Commons Institute

• “Facing Climate Challenge: The Four Horsemen of the Diplomat’s Apocalypse” by Mr Aldo Matteucci of DiploFoundation

• “Learning Lessons from Disaster Management Diplomacy” by Dr Ilan Kelman of the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research

• “Case Study for Innovation in Climate Change Diplomacy” by Mr Andre Stochniol, Director and Founder of the International Maritime Emissions Reduction Scheme (IMERS)

Mr A. Meyer conceived the world climate system as a sink which absorbs carbon dioxide emissions and recycles them.  He is of the view that the sink system has been disturbed and can no longer accommodate increasing rates of emissions.  His mathematical models and risk analysis show that a critical point, at an emission of 9.0 Giga Tonnes of Carbon (GTC), has been reached.  Steps need to be taken immediately to restrain emissions and he perceives the eighteen months ahead as a crucial phase in human history.  One of the solutions is to allocate carbon rights to every person. Mr Meyer insists that the model he uses is quite absolute being based on simple mathematical projections.

Dr I. Kelman used disaster-related activity efforts as tangible situations to discuss possible scenarios to address climate change problems.  Disasters sometimes encourage enemy communities to cooperate in addressing them, one example being the two earthquakes which happened respectively in Turkey and in Greece; in either cases, each country helped the other.  However, such disaster-related efforts are typically of short-term nature, and besides, are possible provided certain long-term factors are apparent, such as political leadership.  Dr Kelman is of the view that climate change is a long-term phenomenon, and it must not be confused with other situations such as water conflicts.  Climate change requires scientific evaluation and proportionately, a similar objective response.  He believes that mixing political and scientific realties will not work out in this case.

Mr A. Stochniol proposed the use of a carbon charge (in other words, a carbon tax) to cap carbon emissions caused in the area of international maritime transport.  He views this area as a significant contributor to emissions.  He notes the sector was excluded from the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.  The use of a specific carbon charge which could be payable at the rate of 1 USD per 1000 USD of traded goods would by-pass the difficulty of coordinating policies and outcomes via several multilateral organizations, each of which having partial competence. He considers this solution will result in ambitious results.  He suggests that an influential government could take up the task of formally proposing the idea on the road from Bali (2007).  In his model, half of the funds would go to adaptation measures, and the other half to mitigation ones.

Mr. A. Matteucci said a consumption factor was essential in understanding the carbon footprint.  This makes the problem identification more complex.  First, production in one end of the world is consumed at the other.  Second, if the poor would want to catch up with wealth owned by the West, then the world population in current terms may be estimated at 72 billion.  He argues that the problem of climate change is primordially a political and economic one, instead of being scientific.  Four obstacles handicaps action and leads to procrastination:

i)                    paralysis by analysis, that is the cycle of papers and discussion never ends;

ii)                   the counsel of perfection, which again delays action;

iii)                 to what extent should the current generation bear the consequences of past actions and future consequences;

iv)                 assuming the problem of climate change is huge and so dividing the world into the friends and foes of climate change.

It is no use making complex models, which are, besides based on numerous assumptions.  He rather thinks that the issue must be faced up with reason, by defining values and goals then determining the costs and benefits of various alternatives.  This approach implies an understanding of the principle of change.

There was a tendency to see Mr Stochniol’s proposal as tangible.  His proposal may warrant more in-depth attention.  Mr Matteucci thought such a proposal was a practical way of looking at the problem of climate change.

 R. Coopamootoo07.02.2008Mauritius – rapporteur for PGD 2008/09 course