W Power 2024

COP 15 : Deal or No Real Deal?

The final draft proposal is not a legally binding document. It has no compliance mechanism in place for the mitigation proposals of developed nations, worse, no mention of penalties for non-compliance of Annex 1 countries in the first term of commitment under Kyoto Protocol

Published: Dec 19, 2009 09:31:31 AM IST
Updated: Dec 19, 2009 12:15:22 PM IST

It has been touted as the agreement of the decade in the world’s fight to save the planet.

But is the climate deal at Copenhagen ready? and does it deliver?

India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh addressesing the session of United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen
Image: Reuters
India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh addressesing the session of United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen
Its 3.50 AM Denmark time, the final draft proposal is out. A plenary meeting is on to hold consultations with all parties on the document.

But the entire conference could be on the verge of being suspended.

As I write, there are major objections that have been raised by some countries. Delegates of Tuvalu, Venezuela, Bolivia, Sudan are outraged that the document is not representative. All countries they say, were not consulted, and the proposal to cap global temperature rise to 2 degrees centigrade was not what they had agreed upon. According to the Cuban representative, it is weak on commitments and contains “vague phrases” without specific details on the “mobilization of resources”.

Many developing countries have squarely rejected this draft. So what exactly does this two-page document contain?

A proposal for money on the table: 30 billion dollars between 2010 and 2012, and 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to be raised by public, private, bilateral, multilateral and alternative sources of funding.
A proposal to set up a Copenhagen climate fund as an operating entity to manage these finances and a mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer.

In terms of commitments, developed nations have agreed to reduce green house gas emissions by 50% over 1990 levels by 2050. (The short-term reduction target is still unclear.)

Additionally Reduction in Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation or REDD has finally taken root in the draft deal.

Earlier, in a hurriedly called press conference before flying back to the US for a family holiday, President Obama announced that he had reached a “meaningful” agreement between the US and BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India & China). The key point of his talk was the introduction of “international consultations and defined guidelines”, on the information provided by emerging economies on their national climate change action plans.

A small step forward for the US on its call for “transparency” from the likes of India and China, but nowhere near a binding target.

So where does the proposed accord falter?

It is not a legally binding document. It has no compliance mechanism in place for the mitigation proposals of developed nations, worse, no mention of penalties for non-compliance of Annex 1 countries in the first term of commitment under Kyoto Protocol.

In fact the EU delegation has stated that off the 30 billion dollars pledged as part of the fast-start fund, only 25 billion is actually on the table. What’s more, the combined emission targets pledged so far will not be able to limit global temperatures from rising above 2 degrees centigrade.

The text also lacks specifics on most proposals. For instance how the promised money will be generated or managed, the re-working of the emissions trading scheme, and of course the financial mechanism and governance structure of REDD.

A range of unresolved issues are being deferred to the conference in Mexico next year, including even the adoption of a legally binding text.

Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh in the morning, while addressing the conference of parties, had quite ominously suggested that the deal “may well fall short of our expectations.” But it appears that many developing countries are now unwilling to even strike such an agreement. Sudan has asked for the entire conference to be suspended and deferred to the next year.

The overriding refrain this conference in Copenhagen has been the lack of inclusiveness and transparency of its proceedings.

A meaningful deal meanwhile hangs by a balance.

(The author is a Deputy Special Features Editor at CNN-IBN and is currently on a sabbatical at Oxford University)

Post Your Comment
Required
Required, will not be published
All comments are moderated