Feeble resurrection

The COP16 kicked off in Cancun, Mexico, on November 29, 2010, hoping to take the discussions forward and pick up the pieces from the fiasco in COP15 in Copenhagen. The four subsidiary bodies also met during COP16. These were: Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action for its 13th session (AWG-LCA 13); Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol for its 15th session (AWG-KP 15); and the 33rd sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI 33) and Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA 33). In addition, the 6th Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP6) was also held during COP16

Discussions

The expectation from COP16 in Cancun was not very high because of the unhappy ending of COP15 at Copenhagen. This was reflected in the reduced size of delegations as compared to COP15. Furthermore, very few Heads of State were in attendance, with David Cameron, the British Prime Minister being the exception. Not only that, the US’ position continued to be untenable since the Obama Administration continued to struggle with the unwillingness of the opposition Republicans in the Senate, blocking any climate legislation. The US Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, even remarked that “the US risks falling far behind advances made by China and other countries in the global race for clean energy”, referring to this as a “Sputnik moment”. “Are we going to continue America’s innovation leadership or are we going to fall behind?”

At the very least, the expectation was to start the process of building trust among members. The more optimistic hoped for progress on many of the outstanding issues. These issues included mitigation, adaptation, financing, technology, reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, including conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+) and monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV), along with international consultation and analysis (ICA). The negotiations proceeded on two tracks: one was the conference or COP16 and the other was the meeting of parties to the Kyoto Protocol or COP/MOP6.

The stand of various countries at COP16 was predictable. The US continued to seek the commitments of all Members, rather than being limited to developed countries. It did however welcome the setting up of a Green Climate Fund but added that the fund should be administered transparently. The EU continued to offer leadership to the negotiations, reiterating that it would reduce emissions to 20 per cent below the 1990 levels. In fact, the EU offered to increase the target to 30 per cent. The large developing countries such as India, China and Brazil continued to underline the importance of common but differentiated responsibility, but also voluntarily committed to reducing emissions by significant amounts. The Small Island States wanted ambitious commitments by all, the Africa Group sought expedited action on capacity building, and Japan supported the agreements reached at Cancun but was not in favor of extending the commitment period of Kyoto Protocol.

There were wide differences on the question of how commitments would be taken. While Japan was in favor of a single binding commitment for all countries, Australia wanted to differentiate commitments between developed and developing countries. Another area where differences cropped up were on the issue of climate finance. While there was agreement on raising USD 100 billion, as agreed in COP15, the EU suggested that these could be loans rather than grants. The developing countries were obviously opposed to this. The negotiations were deadlocked on this and other issues and the compromise text that came to be known as the Cancun Agreements were thus very diluted.

The Cancun Agreements covered a number of areas, the key ones being the following:

• Green climate fund: All countries agreed to set up this fund, but with no elaboration on where the funds were going to come from. An amount of USD 100 billion agreed in COP15 was reaffirmed.
• Emission reduction targets: Such targets were set by most countries, including many developing ones, that took voluntary commitments
• Transfer of technology: A mechanism to transfer climate technologies was established, which consisted of the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN).
• Vulnerable countries: They developed a process to support least developed countries (LDCs), small island developing states (SIDS), and African countries in adapting to climate change impacts.
• Agreement on Forestry and Land Use (REDD+ or Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation): It was aimed to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, promote conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhance forest carbon stocks.
• Transparency and accountability: A system for Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV), including biennial reports on mitigation actions taken, was set up. Developing countries also committed to similar actions with International Consultation and Analysis (ICA).
• Future goals: In addition, parties agreed to continue negotiations with a view to reach a comprehensive agreement by COP21 in 2015.

The COP16 negotiations also witnessed heated debates and allegations. China accused developed countries like the USA and UK of double counting their climate aid/finance and the developing countries accused the EU of diluting assistance by suggesting loans instead of grants. George Soros also weighed in saying that a bottom-up approach to climate negotiations would lead to better results than a top-down one.

In respect of COP/MOP6, the main discussion was on whether to extend the Kyoto Protocol beyond its first commitment period of 2008-2012. While Japan, Canada, the US and Russia were clear that any future agreement should include developing countries, there was no consensus on the matter. The EU suggested that there should be more ambitious emission reduction commitments in the second period if there was to be any meaningful slowing down of global warming. The accounting rules for LULUCF (Land use, Land-use change and Forestry) activities were discussed but could not be finalised. The market mechanisms to improve the functioning of the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation, so that the quantity of emissions could be easily verified, was also discussed. The operationalisation of the Adaptation Fund to support developing countries and capacity building and technology transfer to developing countries were also discussed. Finally, the linkage of the Kyoto Protocol to the broader UNFCCC process also came up for discussion.

Conclusion

The COP16 at Cancun got the countries back to the negotiating table after the fiasco at Copenhagen in COP15. However, no major agreement was taken and there was criticism that countries had just kicked the can down to the next COP. There was some truth to this criticism since the COP17 at Durban would have to deal with tricky issues such as developing country commitments, extension of Kyoto Protocol and how to raise the USD 100 billion for the Green Climate Fund.

The writer is Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Mass Education Extension and Library Services and Department of Cooperation, Government of West Bengal