RIYADH: The chief Saudi negotiator at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen next month is pessimistic about the chances of the forum succeeding and has accused developed countries of protecting their own economic interests at the expense of developing nations.

Mohammad Al-Sabban, a senior economic adviser at the Saudi Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources, said the Copenhagen meeting would not lead to an agreement on protecting the environment and combating climate change, but lead to an economic agreement.

The Copenhagen conference is being held to produce a new agreement on climate change. A preliminary draft — the Bali Action Plan — was adopted by a number of countries at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bali, Indonesia, two years ago. Since then, there have been a series of pro-Copenhagen climate change negotiations, the most recent in Bangkok last month and in Barcelona at the beginning of November.

There have, however, been bitter disagreements on how to reach the UN’s goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by no later than 2020. Saudi Arabia has said oil exporters should, for example, be compensated for loss of earnings if an agreement at Copenhagen results in lower oil sales.

Differences between developed and developing countries are obvious to a point that they prevented G20 finance ministers from agreeing measures to curb global warming, casting more doubt on UN efforts to agree a new climate treaty, he said.

“The disagreements are not solely between Saudi Arabia and developed countries, they are between the developing and developed countries,” said Al-Sabban. He also denied accusations that the Kingdom is seeking financial compensation for itself, and said other OPEC countries would need to be compensated.

“Although financial compensation should be considered, we are seeking the help of developed countries in achieving economic diversification through the transfer of safe technology and direct foreign investment that would help the economies of developing countries, reducing their heavy dependency on the export revenues of crude oil,” he said.

Al-Sabban acknowledged that the 1992 Climate Change Agreement stated that developing countries that are highly dependent on oil exports “should be given full consideration with regard to transfer of technology, funding and insurance.”

“The Climate Change Agreement aims to fight climate change and reduce greenhouse gases in all economic sectors in a very comprehensive manner and not only carbon dioxide in the energy sector,” said Al-Sabban. “To show the Kingdom’s seriousness in addressing the problem, it is requesting that carbon capture and storing technologies (CCS) be widely used internationally as a way to achieve what is known to be a ‘win-win’ solution. Fossil fuels will continue to be the main source of energy for many countries for decades to come.”

Therefore, he said, it is essential that this kind of technology provide for the continued use of oil that is free of greenhouse gases, which is what the Kingdom is pushing for and demanding to incorporate in any future deal or agreement for countries to use.

While delegates at the London G20 finance ministers meeting, which took place early this month, said in their concluding statement that they would work toward a successful outcome at the United Nations meeting in Copenhagen, Al-Sabban doubts the agreement will be adopted in Copenhagen. “The Kingdom was, and always will be, a leading country in adopting policies pertaining to alternative energy sources,” he said.

Minister of Petroleum Ali Al-Naimi has, in many international occasions, declared that the Kingdom is promoting the development of renewable energies and would, for example, become a leader in producing and exporting solar energy to many neighboring countries.

Industrialized nations sought progress on climate change financing at a meeting of G20 finance ministers, but met resistance from emerging nations, including China and India, which fear the proposals would stifle economic growth. “The reason there was no progress at the G20 meeting is that developed countries are trying to dilute their financial commitments under the UNFCCC and are asking developing countries to also finance the new climate agreement. This is a total violation of the rights and obligations under the Climate Convention,” he added.

The UK, for example, has called for the world to maintain high ambitions at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in December. Although negotiations are slow at the moment, there is no alternative to a substantial and comprehensive deal, according to the British Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband. But Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and other OPEC members have repeatedly pressed for compensation for countries that produce or sell oil and coal since the first round of talks about climate change in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. According to Al-Sabban, the Kingdom will face the fact that oil will gradually lose its market share as a result of selective and biased climate policies. He pointed out that the Kingdom would still need help in developing new industries in different economic sectors and creating jobs for its growing population, which is a matter of concern. “We are gradually moving into a knowledge economy. However, it will take us long time to reach that stage,” he said.

Al-Sabban believes that countries are resisting the treaty because it is turning into an economic agreement rather than an environmental agreement that will reorganize the international economic order, which will definitely have losers and gainers.

“Developed countries are turning the whole debate on how to shift the burden on to developing countries without compensating them. Politics are interfering to shift the burden on developing or industrialized countries; they are very explicit in their aim at reducing their dependency on imported oil, which developing countries could not accept,” said Al-Sabban.

He added that developed countries have a historical responsibility for contributing to global warming, and that they need to carry a much higher economic burden when addressing climate change.