The 20th Conference of Parties (COP20) which concluded last week in Lima, Peru has been described as an effort to promote consensus at the expense of real movement forward in concrete terms. This preparatory meeting attracted especial attention given the evolving dynamics related to Climate Change that has been reflected in several steps taken since June, 2014.
It would be pertinent to refer here to President Obama announcing a new Environmental Protection Agency rule in June which required major emission cuts from coal-fired power plants. This was seen as US's ambition to reduce emissions by up to 28 percent by 2025. This pro-active process later included multilateral deliberations at the UN Climate Summit held within the paradigm of the latest UN General Assembly session held in New York in September, 2014.
Then came the landmark announcement in November this year when the two presidents of the USA and China agreed on the need for polluters to reduce their carbon emissions. This was seen as an historic breakthrough.
The Lima meeting convened ahead of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) conference planned for Paris towards the end of 2015 was expected to yield clearly defined results. Unfortunately, it has not been so.
Analysis of the text agreement by green activists have pointed out that environmental groups consider the deal to be an ineffectual compromise in the pursuit of least common denominators.
According to them, it has ended up in the creation of a weak text which resembles 'a zebra crossing' - and a situation where you see scope for coordinated action at times and not always.
The talks proved difficult because of divisions between the rich and poor countries over how to spread the burden of pledges to cut carbon emissions. The differences over the draft text caused the two-week talks to be extended by two more days.
On the other hand, it has been claimed by certain parties that the 194 UN members attending the meeting have not only reached an agreement on how countries should tackle climate change but also approved a framework for setting national pledges to be submitted during the Paris meeting next year Miguel Arias Canete, EU Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy, has gone to the extent of stating that the EU had wanted a more ambitious outcome but he still believed that "we are on a track to agree a global deal at a summit in Paris, France, next year". The UK climate change minister Ed Davey has, however, been more cautious and indicated that despite current optimism among some, he believed that it was not going to be "a walk in the park in Paris."
Matt McGrath, who covered the Lima meeting for BBC, has interestingly remarked that 'none of the 194 countries attending the talks walked away with everything they wanted, but everybody got something'. In this context he has pointed out that "as well as pledges and finance, the agreement points towards a new classification of nations.
Rather than just being divided into rich and poor, the text attempts to reflect the more complex world of today, where the bulk of emissions originate in developing countries. While progress in Lima was limited, and many decisions were simply postponed, the fact that 194 nations assented to this document means there is still momentum for a deal in Paris. The Lima deal can be seen as a dry run for a much greater Paris compact. Ostensibly it was about how countries should format their intended national pledges on climate change".
THE AGREED ELEMENTS: It is, however, generally agreed by most governments that the agreed text of the prospective climate deal heralds a historic shift through the emphasis on countries having "common but differentiated responsibilities". It has also restored a promise to poorer countries that a "loss and damage" scheme would be established to help them cope with the financial implications of rising temperatures. There was, however, a weakened language on national pledges. Instead of saying countries "shall" the word "may" was used regarding countries including quantifiable information showing how they intend to meet their emissions targets.
It would be pertinent here to highlight some of the agreed elements in the document. It calls for:
(a) an "ambitious agreement" in 2015 that reflects "differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities" of each nation; (b) developed countries to provide financial support to "vulnerable" developing nations; (c) national pledges to be submitted by the first quarter of 2015 by those states "ready to do so"; (d) countries to set targets that go beyond their "current undertaking" and (e) the UN climate change body to report back on the national pledges in November 2015.
BINARY VIEW OF THE WORLD: The Lima meeting will be remembered for attempting to tackle the binary view of the world that the UN Convention on climate change brought into being in 1992 during the UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It divided the world into rich and poor (Annex 1 and Non-Annex 1, in UN jargon). It was understood that the richer countries would take on carbon-cutting commitments - the poorer ones would not. In Lima, that view of the world was set aside in the strictest sense of the term.
Activists, disappointed with the nature of the Lima compromise have since called on world leaders not to corral poor African countries and small island states into making the same level of commitment on climate change as the big boys. This matrix change and reform has been sought by some countries who have addressed this issue against the Singapore perspective.
They have pointed out that Singapore, with a gross domestic product per capita larger than Germany, is still classed as a Non-Annex 1 ("poor") country. Consequently, there is no mention of Annex 1 parties anywhere in the Lima document. To make it clear there are 'different strokes for different folks', the text reiterates the importance of "common but differentiated responsibilities" or CBDR in the eco-jargon.
China and the US are supposed to have both supported this addition. Essentially, it means that there will be no fixed positions anymore. It also connotes that countries can and do develop, and with that development will come a different level of commitment on climate change. The historic distinction between the rich and poor countries has therefore been abandoned.
OPENING THE WAY TOWARDS A PARIS AGREEMENT: It would be worthwhile at this juncture to refer to some significant comments made by the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres. She has pointed out "There are three pieces of that concept. One is the historical responsibility, which is undeniable, of industrialised countries; next is the respective capacities and capabilities of countries, which are an ongoing process; and the third part is actually the national circumstances".
She believes that facing up to the existing challenges "from a political and operational point of view is a very important breakthrough that actually opens the way towards a Paris agreement."
Initial disagreement between nations over the distribution of responsibilities and costs had brought negotiations to a deadlock, causing the conference to be extended by two days. However, optimism appears to have won the day. The elements hammered out over more than two weeks by about 190 countries at the 20th Conference of Parties (COP20) will hopefully serve as the basis for an international climate treaty to be signed in Paris next year. That treaty is supposed to detail nations' responsibilities in the fight against climate change and will come into effect in 2020.
In the meantime, a handful of developed and developing countries have pledged contributions to the Green Climate Fund, designed to finance sustainable development -- boosting it to nearly $10.2 billion.
The process in 2015 will be exacting in terms of commitment. We will have the UNFCCC meeting from February 8-13 in Geneva aimed at finalising the remaining contentious passages. Then comes end of the first quarter of 2015 which is the deadline for nations ("ready to do so") to submit pledges for cutting carbon emissions so that global warming can be limited to two degrees Celsius. Subsequently, before May 2015 the UNFCCC has to produce a whittled down draft blueprint for the Paris accord. From June 3-14, the UNFCCC will also be hosting its half-yearly meeting in Bonn.
All these steps will require both political commitment and compromise. Bangladesh, one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change, will be scrutinising very carefully all the steps that will be taken between now and the beginning of the meeting in Paris on November 30, 2015 regarding principles related both to mitigation and adaptation.
One can only hope that as critical time runs out, nations will come together to resolve the crisis and not create further obstacles with their narrow and selfish partisan interests. They will also have to agree on promotional measures related to the facilitation of the renewable energy process, so vital for cutting carbon emission.
The writer, a former Ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance.
mzamir@dhaka.net
Lacklustre Lima climate deal: Everybody gets something
Muhammad Zamir | Published: December 22, 2014 00:00:00 | Updated: November 30, 2026 06:01:00
Share if you like