Post Cancun
Prospects of climate regulatory regime
Cancun: Demonstration during conference.
The Climate Change Conference 2010, of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC], held in Cancun is known formally as the Sixteenth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC [COP 16], which also serves a Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol [CMP 6]. Cancun Conference approved a set of decisions under both the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. UNFCCC or the Convention of 1992, established the legal basis for a system of international co-operation in order to advance further governance regime particularly for stabilization of greenhouse gas [GHGs] concentrations in the atmosphere to avoid the dangerous anthropogenic climate change. The first Conference of Parties, 1995 was held in Berlin, where the member states realised an inadequacy of the voluntary commitments under the Convention to reduce GHGs. Hence, the Berlin Mandate adopted at decision 1/CP.1, initiating further negotiation for a legally binding instrument with aggregate commitments particularly from industrialized countries, responsible historically for anthropogenic climate change. The Kyoto Protocol 1997 supplemented and strengthened the Convention by adopting legally binding targets on GHGs emission reduction for Annex I Parties that required an average 5.2 per cent reduction on 1990 levels during the 200812, known as first commitment period. However, the Protocol recognizes the need for additional commitment periods. As such, decision was adopted in 2005, by the Meeting of the Parties [Decision 1/CMP.1] to initiate a process for further commitments for period beyond 2012 and formed an Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments from Annex I Parties. The mandate of this working group was to provide agreed outcomes in Copenhagen, 2009, at the Meeting of the Parties (CMP 5). In accordance with the mandates of the dual track negotiations expected outcomes of the Copenhagen deal were an amendment or amendments of the Convention and the Protocol or new Protocol leading to adopt new policy direction in the climate regime. Instead of any agreed outcomes, Copenhagen extended the mandates of the dual track negations to continue and to present the outcome to Cancun. Failure of the COP 15/CMP 5 and the Copenhagen Accord, an unconventional upshot of Copenhagen conference, raised serious concerns over multilateral negotiation process under UNFCCC. However, Cancun Conference, approving a set of decisions at least demonstrated that multilateralism is preserved and can still shape up the future climate regime. Some of the critics argue that Cancun agreements take us backward rather than forward, while without framing specific mitigation structure, work programme has been taken to strengthen the adaptation and financial mechanisms. The ground is being prepared in Cancun for paradigm shift in climate governance regime denying the equitable access to global atmospheric space and justice. It might be the apprehension of failure of stabilization of greenhouse gas [GHGs] concentrations as adaptation as alternative means is prioritized with same degree to the real solution of mitigation to avoid dangerous climate change. However, to date, there is no comprehensive framework on adaptation, technology transfer and financial mechanisms and Cancun decisions have provided the path for developing institutional frameworks. The LCA track decisions called for the new or strengthened mechanisms for adaptation and mitigation frameworks in developing countries, employed under the Copenhagen Accord including the Green Climate Fund, new mechanisms on adaptation, technology, and forestry. It was decided in Cancun to establish the Cancun Adaptation Framework and the Committee and invited Parties to submit to the secretariat, by 21 February 2011, views on the composition of, and modalities and procedures for, the Adaptation Committee, including on proposed linkages with other relevant institutional arrangements. The decision also incorporates the finance goals set fourth in the Copenhagen Accord a collective commitment by developed countries to provide $30 billion in fast-start finance for developing countries in 2010-12; and to mobilize $100 billion a year in public and private finance by 2020 in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation. Moreover, Parties agreed to operate the Green Fund under the guidance of, and as accountable to the COP. A 24-member board is suggested to govern the fund and to support by an independent secretariat. The committee is mandated to design various aspects of the fund but it was agreed that World Bank would act as the trustee initially, which is a contentious decision instead of considering competitive bidding. But Transitional Committee, in accordance with the terms of reference in annex III to this decision would convene its first meeting by March 2011 to shape the further structure [LCA para 109]. A technology mechanism was also established, with a policy-making committee, and a centre. However, in terms of technology transfer, the Cancun text did not introduce the important aspects of intellectual property rights (IPRs), which have an influence over developing countries' access to and cost of technology. Nonetheless, most important decision in the context of climate vulnerability of LCA track is to recognise the need for strengthening cooperation to understand and reduce loss and damage associated with climate change. It is also invited to submit to the secretariat, by 21 February 2011, views and information on what elements should be included in the work programme including climate risk insurance facility to address impacts associated with severe weather events and addressing rehabilitation measures associated with slow onset events. [LCA, Para 28]. It is significant to establish an autonomous international organ with micro level institutional arrangements, so that bottom up approach can assess the real loss and damage, and to response with remedial measures. It is also important to form a Compensation Fund in the context of climate justice along with an Independent International Climate Tribunal to deal with the claims of loss and damage caused due to climate change. Millions of people of Bangladesh would be displaced permanently or temporarily due to sudden and slow onset events of climate change. The scale of migration/displacement and associated socio-economic disruptions goes far beyond territorial limits and capacity. Hence beyond national capacity there are clear needs of bilateral, regional and international means of cooperation. Therefore, Bangladesh would submit its views particularly on the loss and damage taking into account the climate induced displacement [LAC para 14(f)] linking with rehabilitation measures all the way through legal protection approach at national and international level. Moreover, Bangladesh is now not only referred as the most vulnerable countries to climate change, but also playing leading role in the climate negotiation, while State Minister Dr Hasan Mahmud was entrusted with the coveted task of co-chairing on behalf of COP chair to discuss the issues on finance, technology and capacity building in Cancun Conference. Hence, the due expectation of global community from Bangladesh is to play a pro-active role at the global level for extending the Kyoto protocol to second commitment period and at the same time for another legal instrument under LCA track by 2011. However, adequate ground work is needed with forming an expert committee to act strategically for shaping the national as well as global climate regulatory regime.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments