Outreach was the theme of the third and final day here in Toyako. The day began with a working breakfast with the leaders of China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico – the members of the Heiligendamm Process. It proceeded with the “Major Economies Meeting”, including the G8, the O5 plus Australia, South Korea and Indonesia to discuss energy security and climate change. The last formal session included the MEM-16 in a working lunch, chaired again by Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda.
Three important documents, related to G8 outreach, were released among these important meetings. Below are links and short commentary on these documents:
G5 Political Declaration
Released July 8th, 2008
On Tuesday, leaders of the dubbed “Outreach 5″ countries held a closed-door meeting in the city of Sapporo, about two hours drive from the G8 Summit venue in Toyako. This group had held a similar meeting one year ago, in advance of the Heiligendamm Summit to discuss issues of mutual concern. However, twelve months on, the importance of this group has grown notably. Through the HP these countries have been courted by the G8 to develop expanded roles in the institutions of global governance particularly in the areas of innovation, investment, climate change and energy policy. For the first time together, this group held a press conference and issued a joint political declaration – now calling themselves the “G5″. Only select media were invited and the declaration was not included in the G8 summit documents. Most information about this meeting came from the press officers of the G5 delegations.
Two items of particular interest were included in the declaration. First, the G5 firmly placed the onus of climate change on the leading industrialized nations, calling the G8 to take agressive actions to reduce CO2 emissions. Pushing beyond the G8’s 50% by 2050 pledge, the G5 urged that the G8 make 80-95% reductions by 2050, based on 1990 levels. They also identified a mid-term target of 25-40% reductions by 2020, an option that the G8 could not find agreement on. The shifting of responsibility here between the G8 and G5 has been a constant issue in the climate debates – where the G5 places emphasis on the role of rich nations in polluting the air over a longer period of time and at more intense levels. How this fissure between the G8 and outreach counties would play out at the following day’s MEM-16 meeting was quite unclear at the time. Would the newly dubbed-G5 stall climate discussions and oppose joint declarations? Would this cause an end to the Heiligendamm Process?
And second, the G5 firmly iterated its commitment to South-South cooperation and that its participation in the G8 process did not signal its abandonment of a Southern agenda. As major developing countries, the G5 affirmed its “shared responsibility” to broaden the reach and impact of these efforts based on principles of “equality and mutual benefit.” The G5 commited itself to strengthening multilateralism, chiefly through the United Nations and its affiliate bodies. The language here was quite clear, the G5 do not want to be talked down to – they consider themselves powerful nations who still happen to be in the processes of economic development and poverty alleviation – they can collaborate at the same level as the G8.
Interim Report on the Heiligendamm Process at the G8 Summit in Hokkaido Toyako
Released July 9th, 2008
As commited to at its incepted last year, an interim progress report on the Heiligendamm Process was tabled and passed during the working breakfast on Wednesday morning. The five-page report refines the purpose and scope of the dialogue, detailing issues of common concern and the need for ongoing discussions. To observers of the HP dialogue, there certainly were no surprises in the document. The important working groups have only been in operation for 2-3 months and have yet to yield great results. However, it is recognized that the pure fact of having officials of G8 meet on a level playing field with Chinese, Indian, Brazilian, South African and Mexican officials is a positive step. This document even recognized this group as the “G5″, whereas before this group was referred to as the Outreach 5 (or O5). The word “outreach” had been derided as demeaning. It has been difficult to get information on the inner workings of the HP, and while this document does not give much away, it is encouraging that the process continues and a final report will be tabled at next year’s summit in Italy.
Declaration of Leaders Meeting of the Major Economies on Energy Security and Climate Change
Released July 9th, 2008
The 2050 target did not reach consensus among the MEM-16. In light of the G5 Political Declaration, this was not surprising. In the media briefing following the MEM, the Japanese officials would not entertain reporters’ questions wondering which countries blocked full agreement. The officials did announce however, that the leaders of Australia, South Korea and Indonesia gave their support to the 50% reductions by 2050 leaving it to interpretation that the G5 did not concur. Japan, the host, was not able to attain the full support it desired for its initiative.
The declaration can be read as fairly soft, as it reaffirms a mutual commitment to the work of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and to the Bali Process. Emphasis was placed on research and technology development and sharing of best practices. Agreement did not materialize for post-Kyoto commitments, instead giving the group’s support to the success of the Copenhagen climate meetings in 2009. Disappointing perhaps was the overbalance of climate discussions, leaving energy policy and security out of the declaration. Support was given to energy efficiency measures, however this has been a staple for energy agreements for years and is a policy that makes sound financial sense. Left off the table was questions of ensuring secure access to energy resources through trade, pipelines and security of transit-ways. There was no commitment to renewable energy sources nor was there a statement on the escalating energy prices.
The MEM-16, although a worthile endeavour, has only reinforced the divide among Western, industrialized nations and the new set of emerging powers. The conversations remain conflictual, as we see the solidification of the G5 grouping who may disengage from the G8 process if no results materialize. However, there will be plenty of outreach days to come. Italian President Silvio Berlusconi, and 2009 summit host, announced that at La Maddalena a full day and one half would be devoted to the outreach agenda.
Tags: Brazil, China, G5, G8, Heiligendamm Process, India, Mexico, Outreach 5, South Africa
