Climate Change Negotiations
Whither agreements?
Climate negotiators from around the world gathered in Bangkok recently (28 September to 9 October, 2009) to advance talks towards a treaty for post-Kyoto regime -- 2012 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Bangkok talk was a part of a series of five major negotiating sessions leading up to the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen in December, which will be further encrypted with pre-Copenhagen session in Barcelona (2-6 November 2009). The Bangkok meeting was scheduled to organise the first part of the ninth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and the first part of the seventh session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) aiming at reducing the huge negotiating text into a consolidated and effective format. However, many more were issues raised in the meeting, of which divergent views on some important issues between developed (Annex- 1 countries) and developing countries (G-77 and China, LDCs) have created tension for future climate talks, particularly on reaching an agreement in Copenhagen. The disagreement started following the US's proposal for discussion on mitigation elements under a separate sub-group, while G -77 and China group expressed their compunction by arguing that the proposal was irrelevant and would potentially obstruct the negotiation. The US, subsequently supported by the EU, Australia, Canada, Russia, Norway, Japan, Costa Rica and Colombia, wanted to include a proposal for all parties to “implement their respective nationally appropriate mitigation actions reflected in Appendix 1” ; “to formulate and submit low-carbon strategies that articulate an emissions pathway to 2050” under the heading “mitigation elements common to all parties”. However, developing countries (G-77 and China group) strongly opposed the idea. Their argument is that the proposal is contradictory to the Convention and Bali Action Plan (BAP). The Convention and BAP clearly differentiated the mitigation commitments of developed countries and developing countries. At the opening of the first session of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action in Bangkok, developing countries showed their dissatisfaction on developed countries' willingness to make progress on the constructive proposal by developing countries on climate change such as financial mechanisms, technology transfer and capacity building as directed in BNP. African group stressed on need for 5% of the GDP of developed countries to tackle climate change associated impacts in developing countries. Bangladesh, a member of the LDCs, presented information on newly set up national fund for climate change and Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan. Along with many other developing countries, Bangladesh gave its consent in favour of G77 and China group's proposal on financial mechanisms, where they call for establishment of a number of funds for climate change mitigation and adaptation by developing countries. In case of funding sources, Bangladesh argued that it would be at least 1.5% of GDP from public sources of Annex-1 countries. Meanwhile, the European Union has announced an euro 100 billion fund for poor countries. It is heartening, but the members contributions and modus operandi are yet to be fixed. We wish nothing disheartening occurs and this shows the path for other developed counties. Regrettably, the promises of world leaders during the UN summit in New York to tackle climate change have not really translated into climate talk in Bangkok. Consequently, developing countries are worried about future climate negotiations. Even though developing countries are in favour of sustaining Kyoto Protocol after 2012 (Most people misunderstand that Kyoto protocol would be invalid after 2012. However, the reality is that the first commitment period will be finished in 2012 and there is option for second commitment period without terminating the protocol), but EU, Japan and other developed countries want to terminate the protocol and go for a new one. Undoubtedly, emissions reduction by developed countries below 1990 levels are central to the climate change negotiation. But, problem lies in how much (US and Australia were not agreed to the conventional climate treaties to reduce their carbon emission, notably they did not ratified Kyoto protocol) would be reduced. UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) proposed emissions cuts of 25 to 40 percent for developed countries by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. However, developing countries demand an aggregate cut of 40 percent at least, as many of the developing countries already experiencing huge climate change impacts such as increased intensity of tropical cyclones, torrential rain and consequently flood, drought etc. Recent data shows that China exceeds US by carbon (source: Wikipedia, 2009) emissions and India is progressively increasing its industrial development, and consequently carbon emissions. Such emerging carbon emitters are imposing new challenges to climate negotiations. Developed countries (US and their supporters), therefore, sought for a unified regulation for all countries, which is now matter of deep concern in climate change regime. Their argument is that if there is no binding limit for emerging economies (China, India) then total carbon emission reduction target will not be fulfilled. The United States and the European Union are advocating for global emissions cut of 50% by 2050 based on 1990 levels. To achieve the target they are calling for an 80% emission reduction by the US and 80-95% by the EU. However, developing courtiers are claiming that this proposal eventually target developing countries. To them, 80% cut by developed countries would mean that developing countries would have to reduce their own emissions in absolute terms by 20% by 2050, and on a per capita basis, this would mean a 60% cut in emissions reduction (Third World Network, 2009) Although developing countries' per capita carbon emission is lower than developed countries, but if the current trend continued then soon developing countries' total carbon emission will exceed developed countries' due to high population growth and associated per capita carbon emission. Therefore, per capita carbon emission wouldn't be an instrument for climate negotiation, developed countries apprehend. They are looking for an international mitigation commitment instead of national mitigation commitment for developing countries. Nevertheless, developing countries claim that international mitigation commitment that is common for all will potentially affect their growth. Their concern was best expressed in Venezuela's comment, “It was simply unfair, unreasonable and unhelpful for developed countries to hide their conflicting economic interests behind efforts to re-enact olden days' landgrabs with modern days' sky-grabs”. Debate is mounting on newly proposed concepts of 'carbon neutral development' or 'low-carbon societies' following a bill that has been passed recently by the US house of representatives, which gives the US president authority to impose financial charges (or taxes) on some imports coming from developing countries by arguing that they are not taking enough action to curb their Greenhouse Gas emissions. Developing countries are dissatisfied with such attempts of the US and even with the negotiating text regarding 'carbon neutral development'. Their concern is that by such strategy 'climate change' will be an income source of the developed countries. The US House of Representatives also agreed to harden the rules of intellectual property rights. Therefore, technology transfer, one of the building blocks of BAP, will be a matter of dispute in near future, developing countries dread. Martin Khor of South centre warns that this protectionism in the name of climate change is poisoning the North-South relations in the two negotiating arenas on climate change and trade. Tallberg Foundation of Sweden in a recent report (Grasping the climate crisis, 2008) blamed developed countries for their delaying efforts to strengthen the international climate regime. They warned “even if best possible agreement signed in Copenhagen is likely to fail or be ineffective because of the lack of political will to prioritise environment over short-term economic and geopolitical strategic interests”. However, in spite of uncertainty, we are optimistic for an effective deal in Copenhagen. We hope for surviving the Anthropocene (the recent era is termed), the world leaders will reach an agreement in Copenhagen. Indeed, we are waiting to see a new morning after COP 15 when the global community will be united to pursue a common goal for saving our planet from peril.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments