The international climate negotiations in Cancum (Mexico) concluded at the end of the second week of December 2010, and despite the gloom-and-doom predictions that dominated the weeks and months leading up to Cancun, the Sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP-16) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) can be judged a success. Many observers feel that it represents a set of modest steps forward. Nothing more could be expected from this process.
Viewed in a broad spectrum, the key challenge was to continue the process of constructing a sound foundation for meaningful, long-term global action (not necessarily some notion of immediate, highly-visible triumph). This was accomplished in Cancun.
images (4).jpgThe Cancum Agreements, as the two key documents – Outcome of the AWG-LCA and Outcome of the AWG-KP are known – do just what was needed, namely build on the structure of the Copenhagen Accord with a balanced package that takes meaningful steps toward implementing the key elements of the Accord.
The delegates in Cancun succeeded in writing and adopting an agreement that assembles pledges of greenhouse gas (GHG) cuts by all of the world’s major economies, launches a fund to help the most vulnerable countries, and avoids some political landmines that could have blown up the talks, namely decisions on the (highly uncertain) future of the Kyoto Protocol.
A new deal on climate change, struck in Cancun has brought greater optimism, and opened the way to addressing loss and damage in developing countries brought on by the impacts of global warming, including sea level rise. The inclusion of the words “loss and damage”, which could allude to compensation and a legal obligation on the part of developed countries, would have been unimaginable a year ago.
Countries have been asked to submit their views on the possible development of a climate risk insurance facility that would pay out after a severe weather event. This was not the only surprise in the Cancun package. A Green Climate Fund, originally proposed by Mexico, will also be set up and it entails hope for the world.
The shape of a global climate change treaty – including adaptation beyond 2012 – was established in Cancun. Despite this progress, South Africa – host of the next round of talks under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to be held in Durban at the end of 2011 – will have its work cut out if it is to add flesh to the frame between now and then.
The problem was often a lack of political weight behind negotiating officials. Durban might also see all-night marathons to get an agreement – the larger and more contentious issue of establishing a legally binding agreement to cut harmful greenhouse gas emissions is still unresolved. According to Wendel Trio, climate policy director of Greenpeace International: “In Durban we need a global deal that helps countries build a green economy, and that holds polluters accountable. The governments not only acknowledged the gap between their current weak pledges and where they need to get to, they actually stated that emissions cuts needed to be in line with the science – 25 to 40 percent cuts by 2020 – and that they need to keep global temperature rise below two degrees [Celsius].”
New climate fund
The new Green Climate Fund will be governed by a board of 24 members, with an equal number from developing and developed countries, and will be administered by the World Bank for the first three years. However, this has not gone down well with developing countries. While explaining African position, Dr Edward Kofi Omane Boamah, Ghana’s deputy minister for the environment said: “We [the African Union] are working towards the creation of an Africa Green Fund, which will be administered by the African Development Bank – we want Africa’s share of money to flow through that.”
The Green Climate Fund will disburse money for adaptation support as well as efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Cancun deal noted the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, in which developed countries pledged US$30 billion as fast-start finance for adaptation and mitigation efforts from 2010 to 2012.
The accord has generated a lot of acrimony in developing countries, who have accused rich countries of “double counting” their official development assistance (ODA) as support for climate change efforts.
In terms of the Kyoto Protocol of the UNFCCC, financial support has to be over and above ODA. The Cancun agreement called on developed countries to submit details of their financial support to enhance transparency. Undoubtedly, the new deal calls on developed countries to raise $100 billion a year by 2020 in long-term finance to help developing countries, but no tangible way has been established to provide that money.
Adaptation
The proposal for a loss and damage mechanism has been a contentious issue. In various drafts of the climate change deal during the past two years it has always been noted in brackets, indicating that it was an unresolved issue. The new agreement also established a Cancun Adaptation Framework, with guidelines on providing support for adaptation. Civil society has called for the establishment of such a framework for several years.
In another important development the framework calls on countries to enhance understanding and cooperation on “climate change-induced displacement, migration and planned relocation.” Again, developing countries felt the language could have been stronger, but NGOs said the fact that displacement and planned relocation were recognized was a good “first step”.
The agreement calls for an adaptation committee to provide support to countries, right down to the local government level, However, Antonio Hill, a climate change policy expert at Oxfam, an international relief agency, feels that there is no financial support linked to this committee. Nevertheless, Cancun has added hope and impetus to future negotiations.
India at Cancun
India’s role in the recently-concluded climate change summit in Cancun (Mexico) has been a balanced one. India not only played a leading role in the negotiations but also ensured that most of its concerns were addressed. A couple of days before the conclusion of the summit, it was feared that India might be forced into making its voluntary pledges to reduce the growth of its greenhouse gas emissions a “legally-binding” commitment. Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh’s extempore statement, that kept the issue open-ended, also added fuel to the fire. However, as the final Cancun Agreements show, India was able to resist the pressure.
The agreements have five insertions which are at India’s behest. In the section on shared vision, the figure of 50 per cent has been dropped from identifying a global goal for substantially reducing emissions by 2050. Secondly, the phrase access to sustainable development has been introduced in the context of working towards identifying a time-frame for global peaking of greenhouse gas emission based on the best available scientific knowledge. The one thing India lost out on was the non-inclusion of the issue of intellectual property rights in the technology-sharing mechanism. India wanted an explicit commitment to let the talks continue on the inclusion of patented technologies in the technology-sharing mechanism, which has been almost decided. However, the Agreements do not contain this assurance.
In view of the ‘tentative groundwork’ prepared by the Cancun Summit, some experts have called for ‘significant leadership’ from India, China and the European Union to strengthen the agreement before next climate summit, scheduled in Durban, South Africa.
