Climate talks

“False victories won’t save the planet. False agreements will not guarantee a future for our children. We all must stand up and demand a climate agreement strong enough to match the crisis we confront.”

Apology for starting with pessimistic note which is very unlike me but this is the statement made by Pablo Solon, Ambassador of the Plurinational State of Bolivia at the final plenary of Cancun. Last friday i.e on 21st December, I had a meeting with Mr. Shyam Saran, Ambassador Dasgupta, Mr. Mauskar and Mr. R R Rashmi and the mood of the room was pessimistic only. All of them agreed that we have failed in Cancun. Unfortunately these climate change talks make you pessimistic as you do not find any positive things coming out of these negotiations. Climate change is a global challenge that would have impact on the entire world and we must come together to find solution of this global issues however as each nation has different issues of immediate concern to handle, it becomes difficult to come to a concuss which can save the world from anthropogenic climate change.

A flashback to the history of climate change negotiations.

Negotiations on a global climate change deal began in 1990 that led to 1992 when the UN General Assembly established the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC, to negotiate a convention containing "appropriate commitments" in time for signature in June 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro.
The UNFCCC has 192 parties. Each year as the parties to the UNFCCC meet in COPs , decisions were made that affect the responsibilities of the parties. The UNFCCC COPs were as follows:
• 1995 - COP 1, The Berlin Mandate
• 1996 - COP 2, Geneva, Switzerland
• 1997 - COP 3, The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change
• 1998 - COP 4, Buenos Aires, Argentina
• 1999 - COP 5, Bonn, Germany
• 2000 - COP 6, The Hague, Netherlands
• 2001 - COP 6 (Continued), Bonn, Germany
• 2001 - COP 7, Marrakech, Morocco
• 2002 - COP 8, New Delhi, India
• 2003 - COP 9, Milan, Italy
• 2004 - COP 10, Buenos Aires, Argentina
• 2005 - COP 11 Montreal, Canada
• 2006 - COP 12, Nairobi, Kenya
• 2007 - COP 13 Bali, Indonesia
• 2008 - COP 14, Poznań, Poland
• 2009 - COP 15, Copenhagen, Denmark
• 2010 - COP-16, Cancun

The first major step to the UNFCCC was the Kyoto Protocol which was negotiated in 1997 because the international community had been convinced by then by the emerging climate change science that developed nations needed to be bound by numerical emissions reductions targets. Under the Kyoto, Protocol, the developed countries agreed to reduce their overall emissions of six greenhouse gases by an average of 5.2% below 1990 levels between 2008-2012. The developing countries had no binding emissions reductions obligations under Kyoto.

At climate negotiations at COP-13 in Bali, Indonesia in 2007, parties to the UNFCCC agreed for an agreement that would create a second commitment period under the UNFCCC and would include binding emissions reductions for developed countries and new programs on adaptation for developing countries, deforestation, finance, technology transfer, and capacity building. This agreement was referred to as the Bali Action Plan which also called for articulating a "shared vision for long-term cooperative action," including a long-term global goal for emission reductions.
The Bali decision also recognized that developing countries could make contributions to solving the climate change through the development of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), that is climate change strategies for developing countries. The NAMAs, however, would not constitute binding emissions reduction requirements for developing countries in contrast to the binding obligations of developed countries in the Kyoto Protocol that would be further developed and extended in Copenhagen.

Although some progress was made on a few issues in the two year lead-up to Copenhagen, little progress was made on the major issues needed to define a global solution for climate change and particularly on legal commitments for GHG emissions reductions and funding for adaptation.  As Copenhagen approached, optimism about a Copenhagen deal faded although there was a short spurt of renewed hope several weeks before the conference started in December 2009 as the US, China, and a few other nations publicly made non-binding commitments on emissions reductions.

During the Copenhagen conference representatives from poor vulnerable nations begged developed countries to commit to reduce GHG emissions to levels necessary to prevent dangerous climate change and to fund adaptation programs in developing countries.

Despite these pleas, not much happened during the Copenhagen conference to resolve the most contentious issues until US President Obama appeared on the morning of the last day, Friday, December 18, 2009. For much of that day, President Obama negotiated with Chinese premier Wen Jiabao, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and South African President Jacob Zuma.

The ultimate outcome was a 4 page document known as Copenhagen Accord. The parties have taken note on this accord. “Taking note” of the Accord is a way for UNFCCC parties to formally acknowledge its existence. Let me quote UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer, “is a way of recognizing that something is there, but not going so far as to associate yourself with it.” However, the decision to “take note” of the Copenhagen Accord does not change the nature of the Agreement. It is not a COP decision. The Accord is “politically binding” on those countries that choose to sign up to it. But “politically binding” is not the same as “legally binding.” Politically binding—if anything—means that political consequences will flow from its breach—diplomatic responses, efforts at public shaming, withholding of discretionary funding, etc. In this sense, the Accord can be considered a strong, high level commitment by the countries that have adhered to it.

The major points of this accord are;

• Reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity. 
• Developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries. 
• Annex I Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted to the secretariat by 31 January 2010 
• Agree on the need to provide positive incentives to aforestation through the immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD-plus, to enable the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries. 
• New multilateral funding for adaptation will be delivered through effective and efficient fund arrangements, with a governance structure providing for equal representation of developed and developing countries. A significant portion of such funding should flow through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund. 
• The Copenhagen Green Climate Fund shall be established as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support projects, programme, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation including REDD-plus, adaptation, capacity-building, technology development and transfer. 

All of this set the stage for the Cancun negotiations and its agenda which was less ambitious than the Copenhagen agenda because most observers believed it would not be possible in Cancun to obtain the binding commitments on GHG reductions, dedicated funding for developing countries for capacity building and adaptation.

I attended the Copenhagen Conference of Parties and it was disappointing to see few countries coming up with an Accord which is nothing but a political document which left me with no expectations of a good deal at Cancun. The United Nations Environment Program issued a report before Cancun analyzing whether the emissions reductions commitments submitted pursuant to the Copenhagen Accord would achieve the 2°C. UNEP concluded that if the highest ambitions of all countries associated with the Copenhagen Accord are implemented and supported, annual emissions of greenhouse gases could be cut, on average, by around 7 gigatons (Gt) of CO2 equivalent by 2020. Without this action, it is likely that a business-as-usual scenario would see emissions rise to an average of around 56 Gt of CO2 equivalent by around 2020. Cuts in annual emissions to around 49 Gt of CO2 equivalent would still however leave a gap of around 5 Gt compared with where we need to be. The experts estimate that emissions need to be around 44 Gt of CO2 equivalent by 2020 to have a likely chance of pegging temperatures to 2° C or less. However, if only the lowest ambition pledges are implemented, and if no clear rules are set in the negotiations, emissions could be around 53 Gt of CO2 equivalent in 2020--not that different from business as usual.

This is the reason for all the disappointment that I have post Copenhagen Conference, followed by Cancun agreement. When climate change negotiations began in 1990, the CO2 atmospheric concentration was approximately 350 ppm but as the international community concluded the Cancun meeting, CO2 atmospheric concentrations is almost 390 ppm. Each year of waiting has made the achievement of a safe atmospheric GHG concentration more difficult.


Now, the big question is what would happen in post 2012 when the first commitment period of Kyoto expires. After the Copenhagen conference , there were questions raised on the procedure of UNFCCC and there was a fear of Kyoto Protocol being rejected. Cancun conference was able to somehow raise our expectations for continuation of Kyoto Protocol. The possible outcomes from Durban could be

• The Kyoto Protocol being accepted
• The Kyoto Protocol being rejected completely
• The first commitment period of Kyoto being extended for few years
• A gap between first and second commitment periods of Kyoto Protocol

The criteria that all post-Kyoto proposals must meet are the requirement that national emissions reduction proposals must be consistent with what "equity" and "justice" demands of nations. That is, equity requires that each nation reduce its emissions to its fair share of safe global emissions. And so, each nation's emissions reduction levels should be based upon what distributive and retributive justice demands, not on national self-interest.