Press Conference to Introduce Costa Rica’s Candidate for Executive Secretary

of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Christiana Figueres, Costa Rica’s nominee for Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said today that she intended to bring her more than 15 years’ experience of working on climate change issues to bear should her bid succeed.

Ms. Figueres said at a Headquarters press conference that she agreed with the Secretary-General’s frequent description of climate change as the greatest challenge facing the human family, adding that the December Copenhagen Conference had made that point even more evident and “painful”.

Introducing Ms. Figueres, Jorge Urbina, Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the United Nations, said she had been active in environmental issues, particularly climate change, adding that his country, among the first to sign up to the Copenhagen Accord, had decided to nominate her to head the Climate change Convention.

Ms. Figueres said that, inspired by United States astronaut Neil Armstrong’s words, she liked to think of the Copenhagen Accord as a “big step for the community of nations, but a very small step for the planet”.  It was a big step for the community of nations because, for the first time, the international community had agreed to strive for a maximum temperature increase of fewer than 2˚ Celsius, and second, all large emitters, as well as many small ones, had actually made public mitigation pledges in a multilateral context.  That had been somewhat unforeseeable before Copenhagen, she noted, because previously, many countries, particularly large ones, had made unilateral pledges, but only within their own sovereign spheres rather than inserting them into a multilateral framework, which was crucial for the process.

Third, the Copenhagen Accord called for a commitment to transparency in accounting for emission reductions, which was the only way to know whether there was forward movement or not, she said.  Fourth, Member States had a commitment urgently to initiate funding for adaptation and mitigation to the point where “we have a commitment from the industrialized countries to put on the table $30 billion over the next three years, and then ratchet that up to $100 billion per year by the year 2020”.  Those efforts were already under way, she said.  Fifth, was acknowledgement of the important role of deforestation both as one of the causes, but more importantly, as a potential contribution to resolution of the problem, she said, adding that there was finally, for the first time, recognition of the need to provide incentives for low-emission countries.

Explaining why she considered Copenhagen “a small step for the planet”, she said there was a need further to specify the sub-2˚ Celsius, noting that “below 2 degrees has a huge range”.  Was it 1.5, 1.6 or 1.7? she asked.  “That may not mean much to those in industrialized countries, but to the most vulnerable countries, the small island States, the difference between 1.5 and 1.6 or 1.7 is the difference of survival, so that needs to be further specified as we move further into the negotiations.”

She went on to point out that the current level of mitigation pledges on the table was actually not enough even to reach the 2˚ Celsius maximum.  Most of the several available analyses of the pledges agreed that the maximum temperature would end up at a 3˚ Celsius maximum, she said, noting that some had even suggested that it could end up at 3.9˚ Celsius, which was clearly insufficient.

The Copenhagen Accord did not provide for mid- and long-term reductions, long-term reductions for industrialized countries, or long-term reductions as a global effort by all countries, she continued.  Moreover, it did not establish any financing architecture.  While $30 billion could be on the table this year, it was not clear how the funds would be funnelled or what criteria would be used to allocate them.

Many countries would also argue that the Copenhagen Accord was not a legally binding instrument, which was the aspiration of many countries as they travelled to the Danish capital, she said, emphasizing the importance of responding to that diverse picture of strengths and weaknesses in order to move forward, particularly on how to allow the Accord to shed some light on the ongoing negotiations, given that some countries had not signed on.

With some 111 countries signed up as of last week, those not yet on board presented a challenge for the negotiations, she said.  “The Copenhagen Accord, as it was not adopted by the Conference of the Parties, but rather taken note of, is not considered an agreement of the Conference of the Parties and will have to be treated as political direction and political guidance that goes into the current negotiation tracks, which are the Kyoto Protocol and long-term cooperative action,” she added.

Regarding the role of the many other forums in which climate change was under discussion ‑‑ among them the G-20, the Major Emissions Forum (MEF), bilateral and multilateral exchanges and informal consultations, as well as meetings of the Basic Group of Countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China, the developing world’s major emitters) ‑‑ they were all “helpful” in generating new ideas, but it was very clear that all of those ideas needed to be funnelled back into the Climate Change Convention since only the United Nations actually provided the framework to give a voice to the concerns and interests of all countries.  While it was difficult to work within the United Nations context, it was “absolutely impossible” to work outside it, she stressed.

She emphasized this year’s Cancun Summit had to be “quite different” from Copenhagen since it must be results-oriented.  While the past few years had been spent on creating the architecture for a new chapter of the climate regime, it may be time to shift the focus from architecture to very concrete deliverables, she said.  However, such a shift would present challenges of its own because Member States had to ensure that there was no gap in the regime as the start forward was made as the Kyoto Protocol’s commitment period expired at the end of 2012.

While there were several concrete issues that could be tackled in Cancun, there was a need for innovation and creativity in approaching the issue in order to avoid the mistakes of the past, she stressed.  “That is a situation that we cannot have any more in Cancun.  We really need to be very creative and very innovative in how we approach our work while still remaining within the rules of procedures of the UN.”

It was widely agreed among participants that the Copenhagen process had been neither inclusive nor transparent, and thus it had not been effective and, above all, had eroded trust, she said.  “The challenge we are facing is that the atmosphere within which we have been working over the past few years has been pervaded by a deep lack of trust at all levels of the system.”  There was a lack of trust in climate science; in the negotiations themselves, and whether such a complex issue could be negotiated in a multilateral process; in whether Governments should take the lead, as opposed to the private sector or civil society; and between the North and South.  That erosion of trust pervaded the inside of the Secretariat itself.  “Way too many roads and not enough bridges have been built,” she declared, stressing that that could not continue.

She added:  “I don’t want to pretend that this is something that we can do overnight.  Trust-building is a process over time.  It will not happen miraculously.  It will certainly not appear magically in Cancun.  It is a very difficult path, but I am convinced that it is the path that we need to follow, that we need to embark on immediately.  It is the only path that will lead us to creativity, innovation and any sort of agreement in Cancun and beyond.”

Asked her view of the controversies surrounding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on the science of climate change and other findings, Ms. Figueres said she welcomed the initiative that both IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had taken to conduct an independent review of the Panel’s procedures.  It must be understood clearly that the review was of the procedures and not the science itself, she stressed, adding that the mistakes made in the report were human errors and must be treated as such.  Over the years the IPCC had provided the scientific basis for advancing the negotiations and would continue to do so, she said, acknowledging, however, the inherent uncertainty in the science of climate change.  It was impossible to be absolutely certain for the very simple reason that it relied on “modelling” into the future.

In response to a question concerning whether she felt the appointment of fellow Costa Rican Rebeca Grynspan as Associate Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) would affect her own appointment, she said she did not.  “I know Rebeca very well.  She is a brilliant woman.  We admire her very much in Costa Rica and she has, since coming to the UN in her various posts, gained the respect and admiration of many countries, and certainly of the UN system.  And I am grateful actually to Rebeca for what she has done for Costa Rica and for the UN.”

She continued:  “Yes, it may be a stretch to think that Costa Rica, a country of 4 million would have another position at the UN, but frankly, it is the Secretary-General’s call, and I trust the Secretary-General to make a decision based on the competence of the people who are presenting themselves; on their trajectory, on their track record.  And that is absolutely for him to decide.”

* *** *

For information media • not an official record