Forward momentum

The COP14 was held in Poznan, Poland, from December 1-12, 2008, along with the COP/MOP4, which discussed and reviewed the Kyoto Protocol. The two Ad Hoc Working Groups (AWGs) also met to discuss their future work plans, which included issues such as how to treat future commitments, the Clean Development Mechanism, capacity building, financial issues and methodological issues. However, the main focus was on long-term cooperation and the post-2012 period when the first set of Kyoto Protocol commitments would have ended. The Poznan meeting was also to work towards making the Bali Roadmap and Action Plan effective, so that these could be taken up for approval in COP15 in 2009.

Discussions in COP14

The COP14 was being held in the backdrop of the global economic crisis that had originated in the housing market in the US. Banks were shutting shop in the developed world and a recession was imminent. In such a scenario, the outgoing President, Indonesia, described the COP14 as a ‘bridge between Bali and Copenhagen’, and discussions here would lay the groundwork for the post-2012 period. The Polish Prime Minister reminded the countries of the importance of the climate change challenge and underlined that the ongoing economic crisis should not dampen efforts to take these discussions forward. It may be recalled that the Bali Roadmap envisaged a two-fold objective: a) that there would be a continuation of Kyoto Protocol type of agreement with developed countries taking even more ambitious emissions reductions by 2020; and b) a long-term cooperation agreement under the broader conference, which would encompass all countries.

In the beginning, it appeared that COP14 was a conference looking for an agenda, but as it turned out, important discussions were held. As in other conferences, the EU set a high ambition level for the discussions. It tabled a Triple20 proposal, which suggested that countries reduce emissions by 20 per cent and raise renewable energy by 20 per cent by the year 2020. While the US remained on the sidelines of the main discussions, there was a great deal of anticipation that her position would undergo a positive change after the incoming Obama administration took office. The G77 group of developing countries continued to harp on the tenet of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ and said that the developed countries should shoulder the larger burden of emissions reductions. The Small Island States reiterated their concerns to raise ambition in respect of emissions reductions and also demanded more action on capacity building and transfer of technology. Brazil pointed towards the necessity to preserve the Amazon rainforest and sought more incentives for reduction of deforestation activities (REDD+).

Other issues discussed were a continuation of the discussions at COP13, namely: transfer of technology, capacity building, reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) and a review of the UNFCCC. After the discussions, some key decisions were made, which can be summarised as below:

Launch of adaptation fund: After long years of discussion, the fund was finally launched and was to be funded by a levy of 2 per cent on CDM projects. Developing countries asked for more funds, but developed countries didn’t agree, setting off another round of confrontation. Clearly, the current funds of USD 60 million were rather limited and the developing countries’ demand to expand the levy to cover other types of carbon trade had merit.

Poznan Strategic Programme on Technology Transfer: This programme on technology transfer was adopted. This programme had an elaborate design and included a Technology Needs Assessment in developing countries to identify priority areas of mitigation and adaptation, a Technology Information Clearing House to facilitate exchange of information, removal of barriers to transfer of technology etc.

Decision on REDD+: An important decision on how forests could be helpful in mitigation efforts was taken. This included considering various policy approaches depending on the forest types, incentivising actions against deforestation and protection of biodiversity.

Long-term cooperative action: Parties agreed on long-term cooperation and included areas such as mitigation, adaptation, capacity building, transfer of technology and developing measuring, reporting and verification (MRV) systems to track emissions reductions.

Review of UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol: Parties agreed to review the implementation of the Convention and the Protocol as well as their own institutions involved.

The discussions at the COP/MOP4, which were common to the ones in COP14, were on the issues of adaptation fund, capacity building, financial mechanisms to assist developing countries and transfer of technology. In addition, the MOP4 also discussed the rules and regulations as well as the structure and nature of commitments in the second commitment period of Kyoto Protocol, set to begin in 2013. The CDM and Joint Implementation projects were also reviewed during the MOP4.

Conclusion

While the COP14 did not witness any major agreements, it did provide a forum to exchange views for the more important COP15, slated to be held in Copenhagen in 2009. The COP15 was to decide on a post-2012 treaty to cover more ambitious emissions reductions by developed countries, which would last till 2020 and a long-term agreement under UNFCCC, which would involve all members. There was a feeling that negotiations would have to speed up remarkably for an agreement to materialise in 2009 in COP15 at Copenhagen. One silver lining was that the incoming Obama administration in the US would take a more climate friendly stand; but for that to come about, COP15 in 2009 would be too soon. As Martin Bursik, the Czech Environment Minister said: "The conference enabled us to make real progress on every topic on the Bali Roadmap. All the elements exist for us to reach an efficient and equitable agreement in Copenhagen." On the other hand, civil society groups and others campaigning for sustainable development and environmental protection were disappointed. This was articulated by the Tim Jones of World Development Movement, who said that: "There has been disappointingly little progress on the agreement reached last year in Bali," he said. Yet again the rich countries, who carry the historical responsibility for climate change, have failed to offer sufficient cuts."

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