Lacklustre progress

The COP19 was held in Warsaw, Poland, from November 11-23, 2013. The ninth session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 9) was also held during this time. Other subsidiary bodies also met in this period: the 39th sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA 39) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI 39), and the third part of the second session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP 2). The main focus during this conference was on the preparations of nationally determined contributions in respect of greenhouse gas emissions as well as a framework to discuss the loss and damage mechanism agreed in COP18. It was also decided to implement the Bali Action Plan in full.

Discussions at COP19

The COP19 was being held in the backdrop of the decision in COP18 that all countries, developed and developing, would work towards a single legally binding treaty applicable to everyone. COP18’s decision to set up a loss and damage mechanism also formed an important part of the discussions. The other issues discussed were climate finance, REDD+, how mitigation commitments would differ among members, and adaptation efforts.

A few days into the conference saw a confrontation between the developed and developing countries on the loss and damage issue. While the US stated that they had political and technical issues with such a mechanism, the UK and other developed countries also opposed the idea of automatic compensation in case of losses and damages reported because of climate change. On the other hand, developing countries led by G77 stated that they would not leave the conference without agreement on a loss and damage mechanism. Seeing little progress on the issue, 133 developing countries including the G77 countries and China staged a walkout from the conference. As a compromise, it was agreed that a ‘new entity’ would study the issue in detail and submit proposals for the consideration of the members. To make matters worse, Japan, Canada and Australia cutback their emissions reduction commitments.

The following decisions were taken at COP19 after much deliberation:

• The Warsaw International Mechanism for loss and damage was established, but this was subject to review at COP22. The mechanism was to compensate the most vulnerable developing countries from losses and damages occurring due to extreme weather conditions. The mechanism would also look at better risk management techniques that could inform the way compensation could be calculated.
• There was some progress on REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) and transparent reporting and monitoring mechanisms were established. More financing for such activities from a variety of sources, private and public was also discussed, and a move to results-based finance was agreed on.
• The 2015 deadline for a comprehensive new global climate change treaty, which would apply to developed and developing countries was also reconfirmed.
• It was also agreed that the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) of all countries should be communicated in the first quarter of the year 2015 as far as possible, well in time for the 2015 deadline.
• On long-term finance, developed countries reaffirmed their commitment to raise USD 100 billion. In addition, developing countries and the UNFCCC Secretariat also pushed them to get the Green Climate rolling with financial pledges.
• Technology Transfer and Capacity Building: Efforts to operationalise the Technology Transfer mechanism and giving due attention to the work of the Technology Executive Committee and the Climate Technology Centre and Network was emphasised. Further support to developing countries in these areas was reiterated.
• MRV (Measurement, Reporting and Verification) Framework: It was agreed that the MRV framework should improve to ensure transparency and accountability.

As in previous conferences, the EU was the most optimistic and pushed for ambitious targets in the 2015 agreement. It also supported early submissions of NDCs. The US reiterated its usual stand that the distinction between developed and developing countries was untenable and that all countries need to join the fight against global warming. It supported the NDCs but wanted flexibility so that the different situations in different countries could be addressed. Japan reduced its emission target downwards, in view of reduced nuclear power generation because of the Fukushima disaster. This was not received well by the Members, particularly developing countries. Even so, Japan reiterated its commitment to climate finance, including assistance to developing countries.

Developing countries continued their emphasis on common but differentiated responsibilities, with China taking the lead in this. India spoke of equity and historical responsibility, impressing upon developed countries that they should lead the efforts against global warming, given that their cumulative contribution to emissions were disproportionately large. India also wanted enhanced adaptation measures and financial support for these. Brazil supported India and China and also wanted early action on the REDD+ mechanism.

The LDCs and Small Island states wanted a high ambition outcome in 2015 and pushed for urgent action. Both gave strong support to the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage.

Even with the hard bargaining and long negotiations, COP19 faced a lot of criticism from civil society groups and developing countries. The civil society and environmental groups wanted more ambition and criticised developed countries not only for the low ambition but also going back on the emissions reduction commitments. They also criticised the idea of NDCs as relatively undeveloped and lacking in guidance. Another area which invited criticism was lack of progress on the target of mobilising USD 100 billion by 2020 and lack of action on operationalising the Green Climate Fund. It was quite a sight to see many NGO representatives walking out from various negotiations donning white T-shirts with the slogan: “polluters talk, we walk”. These included protestors from Oxfam International, Greenpeace International, ActionAid International, and the International Trade Union Confederation.

Conclusion

There was little to show for in COP19 except the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage and some progress on REDD+. In terms of progress on emissions reduction commitments, there was actually a reversal, with Japan revising its commitments downwards. Even on other important issues such as Climate Finance, there was little progress. On a more optimistic note, Connie Hedegaard, the EU Climate Commissioner said: “it is extremely challenging, but we got the process [for the Paris 2015 agreement] on track. There are more beautiful and faster ways to Paris but what is important here is that we get there and get a good outcome, I think that is doable after what I have seen here”. Let us hope that the EU Climate Commissioner was correct in her assessment.

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