The two-week long negotiations of the 18th Conference of the Parties (CoP 18) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which took place in Doha (Qatar) ended on 7 December 2012. There was a wide range of expectations articulated before the meeting. The 17th CoP had been held in Durban, where parties to the convention had taken a few decisions, essentially in the nature of continuing the dialogue along established lines.
There seemingly has emerged a broad consensus among the observers that three main things have emerged out of the COP-18 Outcomes. The first is the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol. There is a second commitment period from the European Union, Norway and Australia and others who have signed on. However, the other side of the coin is the level ambition and the number of countries who have signed on has gone down quite a lot [the US, Japan, Canada, Russia and New Zealand have not signed on].But this keeps the show on the road and one can hope the continuation of the negotiation towards a new treaty.
The second major issue was finance. Developing countries were expecting rich countries to put forward a number on how much they would provide in the next few years between 2013 and 2020 – they’ve promised (US) $100 billion from 2020, but nothing in between. A few countries, like the UK and the European Union, stepped forward with some numbers, but the rest of the countries didn’t. So all we have is a vague promise that they will try and provide funding at the same level as they did in the last years which was roughly (US) $10 billion a year. So that was quite disappointing for the developing countries.
The third and last major issue was something new that could be counted as a significant victory for the more vulnerable countries – something called “loss and damage.” This refers to compensations to vulnerable communities for the loss and damage caused by climate change. While we didn’t set up an international mechanism on loss and damage in Doha, which is what the least development countries wanted, we have an agreement to look at the possibility of setting up an international mechanism in future.
This was vehemently opposed by developed countries, particularly the United States of America, who didn’t want this item to remain on the agenda because they worried it opened up the door for unlimited compensation. But in the end they let the compromise text go through. The US hasn’t agreed the mechanism, but it has agreed to discuss the mechanism, which in a way is a victory as they wanted it totally shut it down in Doha.
India’s Dilemma
While there is a general sense of agreement on the principle of equity per se, the challenge now will be to make the world agree on operationalising equity. According to R.R Rashmi, chief Indian negotiator at the 18th UN Conference of Parties on Climate Change in Doha, ‘equity cannot remain just an idea; it should become an operational principle.’ Earlier, India’s Minister of State for Environment and Forests, Jayanthi Natarajan, had also made it clear that India would not compromise on the principles of equity and historical responsibility.
Thus far, India has been extremely successful in projecting its views in each successive CoP. But as far as domestic action is concerned, there is a need to pay greater attention to meeting the goals laid down by the government itself. The prime minister had announced the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) on 30 June 2008. This action plan was the result of a very extensive and rigorous exercise carried out by the Government of India, under the direction of the prime minister himself. It involved state governments, a number of experts from outside the government who are members of the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council and many others.
However, it is questionable whether the eight missions identified under the NAPCC are actually being implemented as comprehensively as required. The perception both within and outside the government is that perhaps it is not. As far as India is concerned, this action plan has unique benefits and, quite apart from addressing global objectives, would provide substantial co-benefits at the domestic level.
While negotiations under the UNFCCC and an agreement on decisions may not be moving as rapidly as some may expect in India, it is critical that the NAPCC be pursued with rigour and determination at every level of government and by all major stakeholders in society, including business and industry. After all we cannot ignore Gandhiji’s advice to “be the change you want to see in the world”.
During the crucial phase of the Doha negotiations, some observes felt that India should walk out of the Conference of the Parties (COP18) negotiations if issues such as “equity”, “finance and technology transfer” were not part of the deal. It was argued that talks about mitigation would be “meaningless”, and the “pledge and review” would make the planet a common hell.
While asserting that the pledge and review system of polluting more and more would make the planet a common hell for all, which could not be accepted, these experts lambasted the US, the world’s biggest CO2 emitter and stated that to cut 17 percent emissions below 2005 levels (by the US), effectively would mean cutting nothing below 1990 level. It was meaningless.
India’s Technology Advantage
The optimistic side of the otherwise pessimistic side of the outcome of the COP-18 vis-à-vis India is that it acquires key role in tech transfer for combating climate change, especially after it took a lead role in an agreement for a mechanism on transferring of expertise to developing countries.
Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC) an autonomous organization under the Department of Science & Technology has been selected as one of the nine institutions comprising the Climate Technology Centre and Network, which forms the core of the technology mechanism.
The mechanism, agreed two decades after it was first proposed, brings some cheer to the UN-sponsored climate negotiations at Doha, where talks have been blocked by sharp differences between developing and industrialized countries.
India has had a lead role in helping formulate and forge this agreement on the technology transfer and development mechanism. The technology transfer and development mechanism has been envisaged as a global partnership between the developed and developing worlds in the effort to deal with climate change.
Technology is a key pillar of an agreement on climate change and is central to any balanced outcome. It is crucial as developing countries, particularly the more vulnerable and less developed, do not have the financial or technical wherewithal to develop technologies that are necessary to deal with the adverse impacts of climate change.
For India, the only sticking point remains on the contentious issue of intellectual property rights on which there is no agreement between the developed and developing countries. However, this is unlikely to come in the way of operationalising the technology mechanism.
India, EU and G-77 and China support a structure in which the climate technology centres report to the technology executive committee, which is turn reports to the Conference of Parties, the supreme decision making body under the aegis of the UN.
