By Gustav Boethius
Download Insight 42 Boethius HERE
The eyes of the world will be focused on Durban, South Africa, when the 17th annual Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) begins on 28 November. Observers and analysts will be watching the United States with particular interest, though with the country severely restricted by domestic polcitical discord and influential oil and coal lobbying, it is unlikely to play a leading role in this year’s talks. Emerging economies such as China and India, unwilling to commit to a global climate deal if the United States does not, are likely to also keep to the background, pressures from progressive European states notwithstanding. As a result, a second commitment period for the Kyoto protocol seems unlikely to be finalized this year, and it has been suggested that attention will instead be focused on expanding the established agreements from last year’s talks in Cancun.[1] Within this multilateral dynamic, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is one of the most interesting groups of players to observe. The position of the GCC, representing some of the world’s largest fossil fuel exporting nations, is a litmus test for the progress of the UNFCCC process. This article will highlight the GCC member states’ positions in the talks. It will also discuss some international policy options which, if included in the final deal on climate change, would make GCC acceptance of a global climate deal easier to achieve.
Saudi intransigence and worries
For Saudi Arabia a global deal that curbs greenhouse gas emissions, and by extension the consumption of oil, is a very serious economic threat. Throughout the climate change negotiation process, the Saudi delegations have been outspoken against such a deal. During the Bonn negotiations in June this year, which aimed at preparing the parties for the Durban talks, Saudi Arabia argued that there was no need for a climate agreement for another 18 months.[2] The Saudis are worried about oil being singled out as an environmental culprit,[3] and the country has argued in the climate talks that it ought to receive compensation for any lost oil revenues a global climate deal may cause. Muhammed al-Sabban, the Saudi chief negotiator, stated publicly that Saudi Arabia considers a global deal on climate change to be a greater threat than competition from other oil rivals,[4] and is closely following the developments in environmental legislation at the international as well as national level. Bahrain, Kuwait, and Oman have played more low-profile roles in the talks, but have mainly followed the Saudi line. These countries share Saudi worries about the economic consequences of a global emissions cap deal. The UAE’s progressive stance The stance of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) differs quite distinctly from that of Saudi Arabia. The UAE is actively participating in the Cartagena Dialogue, an informal forum for constructive collaboration seeking to develop progressive policies on climate change. The Cartagena Dialogue was widely credited for the positive outcomes of the COP16 summit in Cancun. Out of the GCC countries, the UAE’s negotiation style is also the most forthcoming. The UAE delegation has clearly stated its environmental actions, commitments, and limitations, and has asked what others will do in return. Compared to the other GCC member states, the talks with the UAE have been much more like regular trade negotiations.
Qatar’s COP18 bid
Qatar has not been as outspoken in the talks as some of the other GCC member states, but the country has played a constructive role behind the scenes. Perhaps most significantly, Qatar is currently one of two parties (along with South Korea) bidding to be the host of the COP18 summit. Although some have criticized the bid as another high profile event for the small Gulf state to host (a sort of warm up to the 2022 World Cup), it is however likely to be more than that. As was the case with the summits in both Copenhagen and Cancun, the host government of the COP talks will receive a considerable amount of international attention. Due to its key role in organizing the layout of the negotiations, the outcome of the talks will to some extent be attributed to the host nation’s efforts and skill. Qatar’s willingness to play this role, and to accept such a political risk, should be seen as a genuine effort to bridge the gap between the talks’ opposing camps in order to achieve a positive outcome.
The way forward
Ultimately, the climate change process is an economic proposition as much as a political and moral one. A central question has always been to what extent a global climate deal will affect economies. When it comes to the GCC, the level of unwillingness to curb global greenhouse gas emission appears to be directly related to the degree of fiscal dependence on fossil fuel exports. While Saudi Arabia’s oil income dependence is very high, the UAE’s economy relies to a much lesser extent on hydrocarbon exports.[5] This is reflected in their respective stances on climate change. Qatar’s gas exports are a cleaner alternative to its neighbor’s oil, which, too, gives it more room for environmental maneuvering. Thus, the GCC’s position in the climate negotiations is much more nuanced than might be expected. The question remains as to how to make the GCC more climate friendly. One possible move would be to broaden the scope of a global climate deal. While the UNFCCC process has emphasized the importance of curbing emissions, it has failed to provide the hydrocarbon exporting countries with economic options. If the GCC countries are to shift their stance on energy and climate change, an alternative route to continuing their economic development must be presented. A global free trade agreement for petrochemicals would be a start. Such an agreement is certain to act as an incentive for the GCC countries to expand this area of their economies and start their transition away from fossil fuel income dependence. This, in combination with a Sustainable Energy Free Trade Area (SEFTA), would strengthen the competitiveness of, and demand for, renewables, and would likely be an effective combination of economic and environmental stick and carrot.[6] These factors are unlikely to be included in this year’s talks as the involved delegations likely have enough on their plates. However, if the UNFCCC process is to produce a truly inclusive global climate deal, the concerns of all stakeholders and their interests in the current international energy system need to be addressed.
Gustav Boethius is a Researcher at the Middle East Institute. He is currently investigating the impact of the unrest in the Middle East on ASEAN’s energy security. Gustav holds an MSc in strategic studies from the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) and an MSc in chemical physics from the University of Edinburgh. His research interests include the economic and foreign policies of the Gulf states and non-traditional security with an emphasis on energy security and climate change.
[1] These agreements include Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) frameworks, technology transfer mechanisms and the Green Climate Fund. For more information, see Deloitte’s recent analysis, available at http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-SouthAfrica/Local%20Assets/Documents/COP17.pdf.
[2] This resulted in Saudi Arabia being awarded the Fossil of the Day Award by the Climate Action Network. See http://www.climatenetwork.org/fossil-of-the-day/fossil-day-awards-bonn-june-6-2011.
[3] See, for instance, a Wikileaks cable in which an American diplomat discusses the Saudis’ fear of the demonization of oil. Available at http://wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10RIYADH184.html.
[4] Reuters, 24 January 2010. Climate talks bigger threat to Saudi than oil rivals. Available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/24/us-saudi-climate-oil-interview-idUSTRE60N0YE20100124.
[5] See MEI Insight 34. Available at https://mei.nus.edu.sg/publications/demand-security-%E2%80%93-the-gcc%E2%80%99s-side-of-the-energy-security-coin.
[6] The SEFTA was mooted during the World Economic Forum in 2010. For more information, see this video at http://www.weforum.org/videos/sustainable-energy-free-trade-areas.
