Ending in disarray

The COP25, which was originally to be held in Santiago, Chile, was shifted to Madrid because of political instability in Chile. The COP25 was held from December 2-15, 2019. The Madrid conference was the last conference before the Paris Agreement was set to become operational in 2020. The focus in COP25 was on guidance for market and non-market mechanisms in developing carbon markets (Article 6 of the Paris Agreement) and finalising the ‘rule book’ for the Paris Agreement. The other issues on the table were the review of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage and issues related to raising financial resources. COP25 was also greeted with some good news and positive initiatives by the UK and the EU. While the UK had incorporated net zero emissions by 2050 into its legislation, the EU had pledged to reduce net emissions by 55 per cent in the next decade.

Discussions

The main focus in COP25 was on finalising the Paris ‘rule book’, particularly rules on carbon markets and emissions trading. The issues under discussion were: how to account for emissions reductions, avoid double counting, and ensure that there was a net gain for the environment. Even though the discussions went on for long, a consensus could not be reached. No agreement could be reached on how emissions savings could be counted for emissions trading and whether a country’s success in meeting previous targets could count towards their contribution in any new scheme. While Brazil wanted to delay the implementation phase of the Paris Agreement and also wanted to include the Amazon Rainforest’s role as a carbon sink to calculate its net emissions targets, the EU and other developed countries did not agree. Many countries such as Brazil, India, China and Australia wanted credits to be carried over. The EU and the others strongly disagreed, saying that this would defeat the purpose of the Paris Agreement since there would be no real reductions, if carry over was allowed. The Small Island States, led by Grenada, wanted action to be expedited and called for raising ambition levels in COP26.

Another issue taken up at COP25, at the behest of the Chair, Chile, was the importance of oceans as carbon sinks. It may be recalled that Chile played a leading role in ‘Because the ocean’ initiative launched at COP21, which sought to incorporate oceans into the climate change discussions. The recent IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and the Cryosphere and steps needed to build scientific and political consensus on the importance of oceans was also discussed.

The other issues that were discussed at COP25 are as follows:

- Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs): Countries were urged to enhance their ambitions and align their NDCs with the Paris Agreement goals. These NDCs were to be submitted before 2020.

- Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage: This issue was discussed in some detail, particularly enhanced support to vulnerable countries. A Santiago Network was also set up to provide technical support and capacity building for the most vulnerable countries.

- Finance: The goal of raising USD 100 billion per year from public and private sources by 2020 was emphasised. Developed countries were called upon to fulfill their pledges of support to the Green Climate Fund.

- Greater inclusiveness: The spirit of greater inclusiveness was underlined with greater participation from youth, indigenous people and local communities.

- Gender Action Plan: A new Gender Action Plan was adopted to ensure that gender considerations are integrated into the climate policies and actions.

- Just Transition Declaration: It was agreed that all efforts would be made to ensure a just transition for workers and communities, including workers’ rights, for those affected by the shift to a low-carbon economy.

As it turned out, COP25 was one of the longest conferences and to make it worse, there was no agreement at the end of the discussions. The sticking point, as noted above, was on Article 6 of the Agreement, which required countries to agree on how to measure and trade in emissions. Another issue within Article 6 was the legacy of the Clean Development Mechanism of Kyoto Protocol: how to deal with past carbon credits. While Brazil, India and China, which held old credits, wanted them to cross-over into the Paris Agreement, developed countries were not in agreement. David Waskow, the Director of World Research Institute, who was an Observer at the talks, stated: “It is a ghost from the past in some way. When you look at the final text, you can see that the Kyoto carry-over question was where the nub of the final issue lay — that was where things really did not get resolved. This uncertainty on carbon trading also affected the private carbon offsets market, where many private corporates had purchased carbon credits in the EU.

There was a visible disconnect between the slow and arduous pace of the talks on one hand, and the exhortations from civil society and environment groups on the other. This was seen in massive youth demonstrations seen in the streets of Madrid calling for an ambitious outcome. This disconnect was captured by the comments of Alden Meyer from the Union of Concerned Scientists. In his words: “This is the biggest disconnect between this process and what’s going on in the real world that I’ve seen. You have the science crystal on where we need to go. You have the youth and others stepping up around the world in the streets pressing for action. It’s like we’re in a sealed vacuum chamber in here, and no one is perceiving what is happening out there — what the science says and what people are demanding.”

Conclusion

While discussions at COP25 were long and extensive, the conference failed to come to an agreement on Article 6, which dealt with carbon markets. There was disappointment all around and demonstrations to that effect were seen in Madrid after the conference. The teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg was at one such demonstration and said that: “The change we need is not going to come from people in power. The change is going to come from the people, the masses, demanding change.” Helen Mountford, vice president at WRI said that: “Most of the large emitters were missing in action or obstructive. This reflects how disconnected many national leaders are from the urgency of the science and the demands of their citizens. The can-do spirit that birthed the Paris agreement feels like a distant memory today”. It was indeed a sad day, that even four years after the Paris agreement, countries were still to agree on a ‘rule book’, even though time was fast running out and emissions were actually continuing to rise.

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