Opening sessionSpeakersDr. Theo-Ben Gurirab, IPU PresidentMr. Thor Pedersen, President of the FolketingMr. Mohamed Nasheed, President of the Republic of MaldivesSummary

Dr. T-B. Gurirab

(IPU

President)

opened the meeting by welcoming the several hundredmembers of parliament present in the room. Dr. Gurirab said that the meeting was a clearindication of the determination of parliaments to address the climate change challenge and theIPU's desire to help parliaments do so.

Mr. T. Pedersen (President of the Folketing)

said that democracy in Denmark had begun in1849 based on principles of human rights and freedom. He hoped, therefore, that hisparliament’s participation would enhance democracy as its aim was “more welfare for morepeople”. The growth of the world's population represented a global challenge that posed athreat to the climate. He wanted the topic of family planning to be included in the debate.The growth of the world's population would result in greater pressure on resources, as morepeople would demand more food and more energy resources. He was concerned at howdevelopment goals could be reached without compromising the environment. Anotherchallenge was the threat to the rain forests. He hoped that the conference would be fruitful.

Mr. M. Nasheed (President of the Republic of Maldives)

said that in 1999, when he was anMP, he was removed from parliament and sent to jail because he believed in the rule of lawand good governance. However, at the time some friends had stood by his side, among themthe IPU. They had helped him and as a result, he was not held as a political prisoner. Now theMaldives had a new Constitution and a new elected parliament, but the country stillexperienced problems. Without good governance, the Maldives and other countries would not

2.be able to deal with climate change. He cited the example of the former authoritariangovernments of the Maldives, which had adapted to climate change to some extent butbecause government posts had been awarded without transparency and without consultation,those governments had failed.Finance was key to adaptation to support environmental protection, and technology had animportant role to play, but without good governance, plans to protect the environment wouldbe compromised. Parliamentarians had a crucial role to play in those efforts.No part of his country was more than 2m above sea level. Sometimes it was easy to believethat climate change was like any other international issue, but the truth was that it was notpossible to "negotiate with the law of physics”.The issue of climate change did not concern only developed countries but was also ofrelevance to developing countries. Even if all the developed countries stopped productionimmediately, at the end of the century the world would still experience a temperature rise.Finding solutions to the problem of climate change required the attention of all countries.For the people of the Maldives, climate change was not an abstract threat. It was a clear threatto their survival. Climate change could not be reduced to a political deal.The Maldives intended to become 100 per cent carbon neutral, which was not just aboutdoing the right thing but also an economic choice, one that was necessary for development.Mr. Nasheed reiterated his belief that good governance was necessary for the success of anyaction on climate change. He reminded delegates that policies and practices dealing withclimate change needed to be transparent and accountable and the result of consultativeprocesses with the population. Green investors had embraced his country's ambition ofdeveloping a green economy and many of those investments had come as pleasant surprises.They had created a cycle of positive change in his country and there was a need to do that ona global scale. Parliamentarians should not fall into the trap of thinking that their heads of Statewould take action on climate change. Although the issue of climate change had been oftenseen as an issue of money and aid, in fact it had to do with much more than money. It had todo with bequeathing a future to posterity.Interactive panel discussion: The politics of climate legislation

Panellists

Mr. John Prescott, MP (UK), PACE Rapporteur on Climate Change, former DeputyPrime Minister of the United KingdomMr. Denis Minev, State Secretary, Amazonas State (Brazil)Mr. James Bacchus, former Member of the US Congress and former Chairperson of theWTO Appellate BodyMs. Loren Legarda, Senator (Philippines)Summary

Mr. J. Prescott (United Kingdom)

opened the session by saying that he felt the same as he had12 years ago in Kyoto, where there had been an atmosphere of anxiety. It was vital to keep theKyoto agreement on the table during the meeting. The negotiation process would be

3.exhausting, as was expected during international negotiations. Although there seemed to beconsensus on the need for an adaptation fund, that was not a simple decision. Still, he felt thatconsensus could be reached. Failure was not an option. He expressed his concern over thestatement by the leader of the US delegation that an agreement required only that the meetingdo the maths and was not about politics. He disagreed with that comment because he felt thatany agreement reached would have to deal with the notion of equity.The world was calling on the European Union (EU), China and the United States to make adeal at the summit. He expressed the hope that the Copenhagen agreement would show thatthe world had the courage to solve the problem of climate change.

Mr. D. Minev (Brazil)

emphasized the importance of the climate change deal for his state inBrazil. He shared with the meeting changes that had been introduced in his countryconcerning protection of the environment, and said that his state considered itself to be a keyplayer in environmental issues in Brazil. He discussed the Juma Sustainable DevelopmentReserve, which was the first Brazilian project involving the Reduction of Emissions of GreenHouse Effect Gases from Deforestation (RED). By the end of its first period of certification, in2016, the project was expected to avert the emission of at least 3,611,723 tonnes of CO2. Theproject would end its activities in 2050, when it was likely to have generated credits of189,767,027 tonnes of CO2.

Mr. J. Bacchus (USA)

said that he was the first American to arrive in Copenhagen and quote aFrench philosopher, Alexis de Tocqueville. He explained the “Principle of Self-InterestRightly Understood”, which, for Tocqueville, represented the main difficulty in a democracy.He felt that the major demand of that principle was that citizens needed to first see the broadpicture, and second be able to see the long-term consequences. That had been the mainchallenge of democracies and was also the main challenge at the conference. The difficultywith fulfilling the principle started with the natural tendency of politicians to avoid examiningthe broader picture with the aim of being re-elected. There was a need, however, to absorbboth aspects of that principle.The issue of climate change was a prominent example of that challenge. He shared the viewsof the President of the Maldives and of his long-time friend, Al Gore. Based on his experiencewith trade, he pointed out that that the best thing that delegates could do was conclude aglobal agreement. If that did not happen, countries would go back to national legislation thatwas not bound by any international framework, which made respecting internationalrequirements at the national level more difficult. He supported the view of WTO Director-General, Pascal Lamy, that countries should not use trade as an excuse for not reaching a dealon climate change. If the meeting failed to conclude a global agreement, national interestswould dominate, and that would not necessarily correspond to global needs.

Senator L. Legarda (Philippines)

said that in the Philippines, the problem of climate changewas not a problem of the future but was already leading to a growing number of naturaldisasters. The country currently experienced at least 20 typhoons a year. There was a need foran agreement in Copenhagen in spite of limited resources. The Government of the Philippineshad been enacting environmental legislation to deal with disasters related to climate change.For centuries, gross domestic product (GDP) and other economic statistics had been thestandard measures used to evaluate countries, but that she believed that the status of a countryshould be based on good governance. She argued that a new brand of politics was needed,which placed people at the centre.

4.Rural livelihoods should be promoted and protected to avoid rapid and unplannedurbanization. She also stressed the need to be cautious with regard to investments. In times ofcrisis, a debt reclaim system should be considered for developing countries. On behalf of thevulnerable millions in the Philippines who lived on less than a dollar a day, she said that thepolitics of climate change was interconnected with the politics of poverty, and the need tosupport the fight against corruption. She advocated a new brand of politics, in whichgovernments promoted cooperation and collaboration and adopted a national developmentagenda to which parliamentarians brought their capacities, but also the vulnerabilities of theirconstituencies. She urged parliamentarians to go beyond the talk and make sure that theiractions were independent of the size of their countries because the effects of climate changewould be felt by all.The floor was opened to questions and comments.Several questions were addressed to Mr. Bacchus, as parliamentarians took advantage of thepresence of a former member of the US House of Representatives to ascertain what could beexpected from the USA regarding the negotiations in the following days.There were requests for access to the environmental legislation that had been approved in thePhilippines, and Ms. Legarda made available to the IPU a copy of the Philippines ClimateChange Act for other countries to use as a model.Some parliamentarians raised the problem of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, with somearguing that there had not been sufficient time for implementation. They claimed that the issuewas not just about money, but about the determination of governments to implement theProtocol.Others drew an analogy between the Doha agreement and any agreements arising from theCopenhagen conference, with some MPs expressing their doubts about the use of that analogyto support reaching an agreement.Briefing session: Progress report on COP15 negotiations

Mr. T.L. Poulsen, Danish Minister for the Environment,

was invited to report on thenegotiation progress. He reminded delegates that they had only two days to reach anagreement, and he felt that that was one of the key moments in history where the meetingcould not afford to miss the deadline. At the moment, there were still unresolved issues on thetable. The deadlock in negotiations was a political one, and not related to technology andfinance. He underscored the importance of having so many world leaders at the summit. Oneof the difficulties was achieving consensus on the financial aspects of an agreement. TheEuropean Union had led the way on that question. He appealed to parliamentarians to followup at the national level what would be agreed on in Copenhagen.Interactive panel discussion: Sharing responsibility for the future: parliamentary oversightof government action on climate change

Composition of the panel

ModeratorMr. Patrice Martin-Lalande, MP (France), President of the IPU Second StandingCommittee on Sustainable Development, Finance and Trade

5.PanellistsMs. Jeanette Fitzsimons, MP (New Zealand)Mr. Eyvind Vesselbo, MP (Denmark)Mr. Saber Chowdhury, MP (Bangladesh)Ms. Makhotso Magdeline Sotyu, MP (South Africa)Summary

Ms. J. Fitzsimons (New Zealand)

said that climate change was symptomatic of human actionagainst nature, which was not able to fight back. As mistakes had already been made, theworld needed to agree that all resources would be shared.Parliamentarians were prisoners of an economic mindset. She called on parliamentarians topropose policies and challenge governments on environmental protection. Her country hadlegislation on energy efficiency and some of that environmental legislation had started off asmembers’ bills, which revealed the legislative power that individual MPs could hold. Untilrecently, the New Zealand Parliament had not had any say in international treaties, but acommittee had been set up to report to the House on the implications of treaties. While it didnot have the power to change agreements, that committee could at least ensure the scrutiny oftreaties signed by the government and in that way, support transparency.

Mr. E. Vesselbo (Denmark)

said that the negotiation process was not just about Denmarkreducing emissions, but about all countries committing to reductions. He was, however, bothsceptical and cautious about what could be expected of the Copenhagen negotiations.

Mr. S. Chowdhury (Bangladesh)

reminded the meeting that the participation of MPs in COP15 was limited to being part of a government delegation, and that situation left them in “noman’s land”.He was pleased to see that the IPU had organized a meeting dedicated to parliamentarians aspart of the COP 15 event and expressed his gratitude to the IPU for that initiative. Hedefended the notion that parliamentarians should not be limited in their actions after COP15.One of the lessons to be learned from the Kyoto negotiations was that it had been a top-downprocess. He suggested that the IPU should create a structure similar to the one that existedwith regard to the WTO, where parliamentarians came together in parallel with WTOmeetings.Regarding climate change, Mr. Chowdhury reminded the parliamentarians that their oversightfunction would be vital as only parliaments had the power to hold governments to account.Financial management would also be crucial, since there would be millions of dollars involved.It would be important to create a code of ethics to govern activities related to climate change.He suggested that such a code could be drawn up by the IPU and in that way, climate changecould be an opportunity for the IPU.Parliamentarians could ensure the continuity of policies dealing with climate change byfacilitating cross-party consensus to prevent a change of government leading to a change ofpolicies on crucial climate change issues.

Ms. M.M. Sotyu (South Africa)

underscored the need for unity on the African continent onclimate changes issues and urged negotiators at the Bella Centre to come to an agreement.

6.A lively debate followed, during which the parliamentarians requested the IPU to lead thenegotiations with the United Nations on climate change matters. Some suggested that, at theIPU Assembly in March, there should be a discussion on climate issues and on the role of theIPU and parliamentarians. There was a suggestion for the IPU to organize a meeting to followup on the climate change meeting at the next IPU Assembly to guarantee continuity. Severalparliamentarians requested the IPU to follow preparations for COP16 and push for theinvolvement of parliamentarians.Participants felt strongly that the IPU should be proactive and play a key role in the climatechange agenda. The meeting believed that parliamentarians could be agents of change andthat the IPU could take the lead on behalf of the parliamentarians of the world in that matter.There was also a call for more debate among political parties on the subject of climate changesince parliamentarians were also members of political parties. There was a suggestion to createa network of parliamentarians concerned with climate change issues within the IPU. There wasalso a request for the IPU to build capacity within national parliamentary committees dealingwith climate change.Closing session

Mr. S. Gade (Rapporteur of the closing session, Danish MP and President of GLOBE

Europe)

said that there was enormous goodwill to do more that what was on the table at theBella Centre. He also remarked that there were no disagreements on the scientific validity ofclimate concerns and alerts, and there was an understanding that there was a link betweenclimate change, food security, and development. There had been a unanimous appeal for anagreement, and consensus that more needed to be done by the USA and Europe, but also bythe developing countries, whose economies were growing very fast. His conclusion was thatthere was support for the agreement and follow-up. The meeting had called for transparency ofconduct among parliamentarians vis-à-vis climate change and a need to share best practices,examples, and knowledge after COP 15. The IPU had a key role to play in allowing the voicesof parliamentarians to be heard at the global level. It was felt that the IPU could convey toCOP15 the need to involve parliamentarians. The participants agreed that the next COPmeeting in Mexico could be an opportunity to involve parliaments.***

Compile a list of basic elements for possible inclusion in national climate change actsand similar instruments;Draw up methodological recommendations on ways to assess the climate impact ofbills, including carbon-footprint analysis of government-sponsored bills;Draw up recommendations for parliaments on best practices in terms of climate-sensitive budgeting;Advocate regular reporting by the government to the parliament on theimplementation of national strategies to combat climate change;Draw up a check-list of indicators to help governments harmonize reporting on climatechange action;Encourage parliaments to promote a review national school curricula to incorporate aclimate change component;Create an interactive web-based platform for systematization and dissemination ofinformation on climate-related action by national parliaments, including follow-up ofCOP15;Provide targeted capacity-building and technical assistance to parliaments ofdeveloping countries to help tackle climate change issues;Assess the relative importance of consumption patterns and population growth asfactors contributing to climate change;Draw up a model code of ethics to help parliaments exercise effectively their oversightof government spending of climate-related funds;Call on the IPU to assume its role as a parliamentary counterpart of the UNFCCC and afacilitator of parliamentary involvement in the process;Propose the holding of a parliamentary COP15 follow-up meeting within theframework of the 122ndIPU Assembly in Bangkok;Draw up proposals to stimulate more active participation of MPs in internationalnegotiations on climate change;Encourage the IPU to participate in the campaign to raise political awareness of thechallenges presented by global warming and climate change;Set up an ad hoc body within the IPU to deal specifically with parliamentary action onclimate change;Urge the IPU to continue to marshall political support for upholding the principles ofgood governance, democratic accountability and transparency in the context ofinternational efforts to combat climate change.