Lima call for climate action: An appraisal

Ministers and delegates from 196 countries after weathering many a hurdle adopted Lima Call for Climate Action in the early hours of December 14. It set the target for setting a new loose course of action for nations to cut back global green house gas emissions to avoid runaway climate changes and kept a lot of issues to be resolved and questions answered prior to the 2015 Paris treaty to be inked next December. The question of urgency was most unfortunately ignored again in Lima.
History will tell us whether the Lima Call for Climate Action would really help craft a robust, ambitious and equitable global agreement at the next UN climate conference to limit warming to the globally agreed rise at 2C above pre-Industrial Revolution levels, preferably 1.5C.
But definitely, Lima has failed to rescue the most vulnerable countries from adverse impacts of climate change in the short run as enforcement of an early peaking period was glossed over, while climate-induced loss and damage couldn't get a place in the operative paragraphs of the decision text.
Ramping up climate finance from 2015 to 2020 could not be clearly indicated to ensure new, additional, adequate and predictable funding over and above official development assistance (ODA). The Lima Call for Climate Action can at best be described as a decision 'business as usual'. It was not even what we call the 'second best'!
Delegates, however, have agreed for the first time that every country would cut the dangerous green house gas emissions that cause climate change. It was seen as a first step towards reaching a global climate treaty in Paris, capital of France, in next December.
But climate negotiators know well that only soft nuts were cracked in Lima, and almost all hard nuts remained intact for the next year. But is it possible what the negotiators couldn't deliver after years of parleys could be done in just a couple of weeks' negotiations in 2015! It's a real conundrum.
Environment Minister of Peru, and the chair of the UN Climate Talks Manual, Pulgar-Vidal was quite optimistic as he said, "I think this is good, and I think this moves us forward".
He at least saved the talks from collapse and struck a decision text in the early hours of December 14 - now officially known as the Lima Call for Climate Action --- which would for the first time require all countries, rising economies as well as rich countries, to take action on climate change.
The Lima COP 20 would be seen by the developed countries as their victory ground as they could successfully demolish the 'Berlin Wall' between the developed and developing countries, the common notion that industrialised developed countries are squarely responsible for the emissions and take the whole burden for it.
Lima saw a break from one of the defining principles of the last 20 years of climate talks - that wealthy industrialised countries should carry the burden of cutting carbon dioxide emissions. Now, courtesy Lima COP 20, all countries would share that burden.
For the first time, China, whose emissions have overtaken the US since climate talks began, as well as India, Brazil and other rising economies have agreed they will need to cut their own emissions as well.
As per Lima COP 20 decision, all countries would come up with their own emissions reductions targets, with a suggested deadline of 31 March 2015. The United Nations would then weigh up those pledges and determine whether the collective action was enough to limit warming to 2C above the pre-Industrial Revolution levels, the globally agreed goal.
There was no headway in reducing adaptation deficit in Lima. Nor climate-induced loss and damage could be settled in the context of new climate treaty contours. Developed countries were shy in committing climate finance as demanded by the most vulnerable countries to US$ 60 billion per annum by 2017, and $80 billion by 2018 so that it reaches the level of US$ 100 billion by 2020.
Lima COP could see only pledges of US$ 10.5 billion for Green Climate Fund and some millions of dollars for Adaptation Fund. All those who have made those pledges deserve thanks.
But it is deeply frustrating that no fresh announcement was there for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) Fund, though there were demands from these countries to provide at least US$ 2 billion to support adaptation actions in 49 LDCs.
There is absolutely no clarity in climate finance. It was agreed in Doha that at least US$ 30 billion would be generated during 2013-15, but how much of that new and additional climate finance was handed down to the most vulnerable countries in 2013 and 2014 is a great riddle.
Where is the expected clarity? Developed countries need to quickly ramp up climate finance to US$ 100 billion by 2020, but there is little clarity in this regard as only US$ 10 billion could be mobilised so far in the Green Climate Fund.
The Least Developed Countries Fund is also virtually an empty pot, though these countries have asked for at least US$ 2 billion for the fund to meet the urgent adaptation needs. There is no progress in the capitalisation of the Adaptation Fund.
To help implement climate-smart programmes across the most vulnerable countries including Bangladesh, we need to know how much long-term finances are there in the international climate kitties. But what the LDCs got in Lima in short, mid and long terms signals to the picture of future finances.
Climate finance is of paramount importance to a developing country, especially to the LDCs. Preparation for INDC in any vulnerable country is really expensive. In a resource-constraint climatically vulnerable country, very little can be done without finance, capacity building and technical support. The whole planning and implementation scenario does change when you have more clarity on finance.

The writer is a climate negotiator of LDCs.
 [email protected]