Download Debates over the new climate change agreement By Meena

Debates over the new climate change agreement
By Meena Raman, Third World Network
December 2013
Previous articles in the Global Health Watch series have focused on the relevance and
importance of climate change to health, as well on the climate crisis and efforts for its
resolution, including the consideration of a fair-sharing of the remaining atmospheric space
or ‘carbon-budget’ among all countries.
This chapter presents some updates on climate change and an overview of the negotiations
under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), especially
the most recent debates in relation to a new agreement which is expected to be concluded by
2015, and to come into effect in 2020. This new agreement, could be ‘a protocol, another
legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention’ applicable to
all Parties.
The process to develop the new agreement was launched in Durban, South Africa in 2011 and
is taking place under the UNFCCC’s Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for
Enhanced Action (ADP).
Concerns over pre-2020 lack of action
Many civil society organisations, social movements and developing countries have raised
concerns that the climate negotiations thus far have not seen real commitments especially on
the part of developed countries for drastic action to reduce their emission reductions in the
pre-2020 timeframe, or to provide to developing countries serious new, additional and
predictable climate financing as promised in Cancun in 2010, to enable the latter to
effectively undertake nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) and to meet the
challenges of adapting to climate impacts.
There has and continues to be, strong resistance by developed countries to enable the genuine
transfer of environmentally sound climate technologies to developing countries and to
discuss, let alone relax, intellectual property rights to make such technologies easily
accessible and affordable.
Hence, there are deep concerns that we are witnessing another decade of inaction for real
climate action at the international level.
Most recently, at the climate talks in Warsaw, Poland, in November 2013, a large number of
environment and development groups walked out of the talks expressing much frustration
that the global talks are not delivering the urgent climate action needed. This rising
frustration was exacerbated by the Typhoon Haiyan tragedy in the Philippines which
unleashed much devastation, damage and deaths as the Warsaw talks began.
Civil society groups and social movements have called for more pressure to be put on
governments at the national level for what is required in emission cuts and adaptation,
climate finance and technology transfer to developing countries and to address the problem of
loss and damage, which is beyond adaptation.
Developing countries in Warsaw wanted the climate conference to be about the
implementation of past and present commitments of developed countries under the UNFCCC
1
decisions and expressed disappointment that not much was delivered except a decision to
establish an international mechanism to address loss and damage.
The then Indian Environment Minister, Jayanti Natarajan said that she had come to Warsaw
hoping that it would be an ‘implementation’ conference of existing commitments. Instead, it
turned out to be what she termed as a ‘holding’ conference where the commitments by
developed countries were put on hold.
There were no targets or roadmap for climate financing to meet the developed countries
agreement to mobilise the USD100 billion by 2020 as agreed in Cancun.i Developing
countries had called for a target of USD 70 billion by 2016.
Developed countries were also opposed to any reference for their aggregate emission cuts of
40% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels, which was called for by many developing countries.
The developed countries who have agreed to a second commitment period of the Kyoto
Protocol (CMP2) for the period 2013-2020, agreed in Doha in 2012 to only an 18% cut in
aggregate. This is lower than the 25-40% range which is referred to for developed countries
in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s fourth Assessment Report for
emission cuts by 2020.
To make matters worse, developed countries have recently been reneging on their previous
emission reduction commitments.
Canada in 2011, withdrew as party to the Kyoto Protocol in 2011 (after the Durban climate
talks).
During the Warsaw climate talks, Japan announced a 3.1% increase in its emissions instead
of maintaining its previous promise to cut emissions by 25% by 2020. It cited the shutdown
of the nuclear industry following the Fukushima disaster as reason for this.
Following the election of a new conservative government in September 2013, Australia is
also backtracking on its previous climate legislation and commitments to reduce GHG
emissions.
The recent science
The IPCCC has recently released its Working Group 1 (WG 1) report on ‘Climate Change
2013: the Physical Science Basis’. The ‘Summary for Policymakers’ (SPM) was approved in
September 2013.
The SPM presents a stark and dire warning about climate change science, stressing that
“warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have increased.”
It also states that “limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of
greenhouse gas emissions.” It further warns that “cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide
(CO2) largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond.
Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are
stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by
past, present and future emissions of CO2.”
2
Among some issues which saw intense discussions during the approval of the SPM included:
the “pause” in the warming trend for the 15-year period from 1998 to 2012; the lack of
temperature data for the pre-industrial period from 1750; the evaluation of climate models
and their reliability in reproducing observations; the emission reduction cuts required by 2050
relative to 1990 level; and the carbon budget remaining in relation to temperature limits.ii
The SPM was adopted after it was commented on extensively by governments, which
proposed several amendments to the draft. The report integrates and condenses a vast body
of scientific literature from the underlying WG 1 report on the physical science basis of
climate change, which took 6 years to produce.
WG 1 on the ‘physical science basis’ is one of three Working Groups contributing to the 5 th
Assessment Report of the IPCC (AR5). WG II assesses ‘impacts, adaptation and
vulnerability’, while WG III assesses ‘options for mitigating climate change’. The latter two
WG reports will be released in 2014. The AR5 is expected to influence the negotiations on
the 2015 agreement.
Debates over the 2015 agreement
Parties of the UNFCCC agreed in Durban, South Africa at its 17th meeting of the Conference
of Parties (COP 17) to adopt a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with
legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties in December 2015, and for it to
come into effect and be implemented from 2020. At COP 18 in Doha, Qatar last year, Parties
also agreed that they will consider elements for a draft negotiating text no later than 2014,
with a view to making available a negotiating text before May 2015.
Countries have provided views on the new agreement to be concluded in 2015 under the
ADP, mainly in relation to mitigation of GHG emissions. Developing countries have
emphasised that the 2015 agreement is not a mitigation only agreement but must encompass
all elements including that of adaptation, finance, technology transfer, capacity building and
transparency of actions (relating to mitigation) and of support (provision of means of
implementation).
The main divergence is over the issue of differentiation that currently exists in the
Convention between developed and developing countries over their obligations, especially in
relation to the mitigation of emissions and the application of the principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) in the new agreement.
Developed countries advocate the need for a “dynamic” approach to the CBDR principle and
are opposed to a differentiation in obligations based on a developed–developing country
binary but are for differentiation based on “type and scale of efforts” in mitigation among all
countries.
They also do not want to tie the mitigation efforts by developing countries to the provision of
finance and technology transfer by developed countries, as provided for under Article 4.7 of
the Convention. This provision states that “The extent to which developing country Parties
will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the
effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the
Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into
3
account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and
overriding priorities of the developing country Parties”.
Most developing countries are opposed to the approach of developed countries and do not
want a re-categorisation of countries. They do not want a re-writing or re-interpretation of the
Convention, its principles, provisions and annexes.
Developed countries have maintained that the world has changed since 1992, when the
UNFCCC was negotiated, and that the Annex 1 (for developed countries) and non-Annex 1
(for developing countries) differentiation is no longer relevant and is untenable. They refer to
changes in the socio-economic status of some developing countries and to their rising
emissions since 1992.
Developed countries, led by the United States, do not want to acknowledge their historical
responsibilities and their cumulative emissions since the industrial revolution which are
largely responsible for much of the stocks of the GHGs in the atmosphere.
Most developing countries, particularly the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and
China) others who call themselves the Like-minded developing countries (LMDC) maintain
that the historical emissions of the industrialised countries is the reason for the CBDR
principle and the basis of equity, which is embodied in the UNFCCC provisions and annexes.
Views of developing countries
A number of developing countries from the LMDC which includes Bolivia, China, Cuba,
Democratic Republic of Congo, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, India, Iran, Iraq,
Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Venezuela
stress that the outcomes of the ADP must be consistent with principles and provisions of the
Convention and cannot lead to its re-interpretation or re-writing, including the annexes. They
stress that the work of the ADP is to reinforce the Convention and to enhance action on
implementation of the UNFCCC and not a negotiation for a new regime. They emphasise the
importance of equity and the CBDR principle and the continued recognition of differentiation
of the nature and level of obligations between developed and developing countries.
The LMDC stressed that the outcome of the ADP must be fair, multilateral and rules based
under the Convention that brings into effect right to equitable access to sustainable
development, and the sharing of atmospheric space and resources taking into account
cumulative historical responsibility.
The Alliance of Small-Island States (AOSIS) also does not want a re-interpretation or rewriting of the Convention’s principles, provisions and annexes. The Least Developed
Countries (LDCs) also stressed the importance of the principle of CBDR.
However, developing countries in the ‘Independent Alliance of Latin America and the
Caribbean’ (AILAC) comprised of Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama and
Peru are of the view that there is need for a new approach to mitigation and adaptation. They
want all countries to have mitigation commitments based on their contribution in terms of
emissions and their economic capacity, among other variables.
Ethiopia wanted a review of Annex 1, based on per capita emissions of each Party which is in
excess of its fair share, looking at cumulative GHG of each country in 2020 from 1751. It
4
wanted emission rights or atmospheric space to be computed by using formula and
recognition of inter-generational debt accumulation.
Views of developed countries
The main concern of developed countries is the issue of mitigation in the new agreement. All
developed countries are advocating legally-binding commitments for “major economies”,
“emerging economies”, or “major emitters” with the agreement having the same legal effect
(unlike the Kyoto Protocol which provides for emission reduction commitments only for
developed countries who are Parties to the Protocol).
The developed countries do not want the categorisation of countries to be Annex 1 and Nonannex 1 “binary approach” or “two-room approach”. They stress the need for a “dynamic”
approach to the principle of CBDR and respective capabilities (RC). They are for
differentiation based on type and scale of efforts among countries.
Developed countries stress the need for the new agreement to allow for mitigation
commitments that reflect ‘fairness’ and “fair shares” with the European Union also referring
to the need for “equity”. However, there is no reference at all in their submissions to the
UNFCCC on the historical responsibility of developed countries for contributing the largest
share of historical global emissions of GHGs.
The developed countries emphasise the need for a spectrum of commitments for mitigation
from all countries and for a common accounting, transparency and review system in the new
agreement.
The members of the Umbrella Group (including the United States, Australia, New Zealand
and Japan) appear to clearly want a legally binding ‘pledge and review’ approach where
countries set their own targets according to their national circumstances. These countries are
opposed to any top-down international setting of commitments and a carbon budget
approach.
The European Union, while endorsing this approach as a start, also wants to address gap
between commitments and reductions required to achieve the below 2 degree C goal.
Australia and New Zealand in their submissions are advocating a “schedules approach”
similar to that used in the World Trade Organisation (where developed and developing
countries make commitments in various schedules).
All the developed countries want market-based mechanisms to meet their mitigation
ambition, which is being opposed by many developing countries.
A major concern from civil society organisations is over the ‘pledge and review’ approach
advocated by the Umbrella Group, as this will not enable a fair, just and sufficiently
ambitious approach to limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degree C.
The next steps
In Warsaw, Parties agreed to some next steps in relation to the 2015 agreement. They agreed
as follows:
5

To further elaborate, beginning at the ADP’s first session in 2014, elements for a draft
negotiating text, including, inter alia, on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology
development and transfer, capacity-building and transparency of action and support;

Parties are to initiate or intensify domestic preparations for their intended nationally
determined contributions, without prejudice to the legal nature of the contributions
…and to communicate them well in advance of COP 21 (by the first quarter of 2015
by those Parties ready to do so) in a manner that facilitates the clarity, transparency
and understanding of the intended contributions, without prejudice to the legal nature
of the contributions;

By COP20 (in 2014), to identify the information that Parties will provide when
putting forward their contributions, without prejudice to the legal nature of the
contributions, referred to above.
COP 20 will take place in Peru while COP 21 will be in Paris. The next two years will see
intensive negotiations on the new agreement.
Grave doubts exist over whether it will be fair, ambitious and adequate to address the climate
crisis. It is clear that it will not be so if left to governments alone to negotiate, without the
massive mobilisation of people to mount the pressure needed for the right outcomes. This
remains to be seen.
i
See TWN Warsaw Updates at www.twn.my
ii
For further details go to:
http://www.twn.my/title2/climate/info.service/2013/climate130907.htm
6