Gentle winds of change

Today is January 19, exactly a month since the conclusion of the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) held in Copenhagen. Beginning with the 13th COP, which was held in Bali in 2007, expectations had been raised that by the time the Copenhagen meeting was to take place, the world would have a firm and binding agreement on climate change - one that would effectively meet the global challenge being faced today - as it is an issue that will certainly get much more serious in the future.

However, with the slow pace of negotiations and the prospects of a binding agreement becoming increasingly elusive, this outcome seemed very distant a few months before Copenhagen.

During the meeting itself, the divergent stands of different countries and a lack of flexibility on the part of some key countries seemed to indicate that there would be no agreement at the end of COP15.

At the invitation of Denmark’s Prime Minister Mr Lars Lokke Rasmussen, it is estimated that over a hundred heads of state and heads of government actually converged in Copenhagen, which created an air of vague optimism that these leaders would perhaps be able to put the finishing touches to an agreement after all, and would not in any case go back to their countries empty-handed. However, the speeches delivered by most of the leaders on the scheduled final day of the summit i.e. on December 18, clearly brought out into the open the sharp divisions that still existed at that late hour of the conference. It was for a small group of countries to then huddle together and come up with an accord which at least created a semblance of an output from a meeting that had generated so much hope and high expectations.

Copenhagen is now behind us, and the next COP is due to be held in Mexico City at the end of this year. Despite the fatigue, and some level of despair generated by Copenhagen, those who are committed to effective and forward-looking action in this arena are still hoping that in the next few months an agreement would be reached for signing by all the countries of the world in Mexico City. This is going to be an extremely difficult outcome to achieve, and would require major efforts by some key countries. One important nation in this regard is the United States where, unfortunately, legislation introduced by Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer is yet to be acted on.

The US President, Mr Barack Obama, has already put forward the commitment of the US to reduce emissions by 17 per cent over 2005 levels by 2020. However, this would depend critically on legislation which would allow the US to accept legally-binding reductions at this level in Mexico City. At any rate, the statement of President Obama falls short of commitments declared by the European Union (EU) and more recently by Japan. The EU has stood by its commitment of 2008, popularly known as the “20-20-20 commitment”, which implies a 20 per cent reduction by 2020 with 20 per cent of its electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2020. The Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Yukio Hatoyama, has gone even further and committed his country to a reduction of 25 per cent over 1990 levels by 2020.

The US Senate, even at the time of the Kyoto Protocol, had clearly signified its intention to see that there is meaningful participation by key developing countries. Since then the growth of China and India has only intensified the demand of legislators in the US to require some commitment on the part of the emerging market economies such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa. In order to forestall this pressure, China, ahead of the Copenhagen COP, announced its intention of reducing emissions intensity by 40-45 per cent over 2005 levels by 2020. India followed by coming up with its own target of 20-25 per cent over the same base year by 2020.

In Copenhagen there was a great deal of pressure on China and India to accept monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance with these voluntary targets, which was resisted stoutly by the BASIC nations (Brazil, South Africa, India and China). It was only past the scheduled hour of the closure of the Copenhagen COP, through the active engagement of President Obama, that the BASIC group and the US agreed on an accord, the major features of which are:

• Recognition that the world must not exceed a 2° Celsius warming above pre-industrial level.
• Calls for Annex I (developed) countries to formalise their reduction pledges and for non-Annex I (developing) countries to state their proposed efforts by February 1, 2010.
• Provision for the mitigation actions to be monitored nationally and reported in line with guidelines to be worked out.
• An assessment of the implementation of the accord to be completed by 2015.
• Establishment of a new Copenhagen Green Climate Fund - to be set up by Annex I countries by 2012 for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries (EU pledged $10.6 billion, Japan $11 billion and the US $3.6 billion), and for $100 billion a year to be made available by 2020.
• Authorises the long awaited forest protection mechanism (referred to as REDD+).

We are still, therefore, without an agreement but only an accord between 29 countries, and there is, therefore, a substantial amount of work to be done for a comprehensive and all-inclusive agreement to be arrived at by the time the next COP takes place. The real question, therefore, is whether the world will be able to provide the strength of leadership that is required to meet the enormous challenge that the world faces on account of human-induced climate change. The overwhelming scientific assessment of this problem requires urgent and effective action.