A pivotal breakthrough

The seventh COP was being held in the aftermath of the horrific terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, in the USA. There was a feeling that international cooperation was a must on all issues, including terrorism and climate change. Jan Pronk, the outgoing President recalled the success of COP-6 and called for wider global cooperation. To quote:

“….the latest scientific knowledge contained in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC show[ing] that the Kyoto Protocol represented only a small step forward for the climate. Much remained to be done, and the Conference must not shy away from future debate on the adequacy of commitments, while respecting the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities {…} The focus at this present session would now be on completing the translation of the Bonn Agreements into legal language….”

The COP-7 was attended by 172 countries and 234 intergovernmental organisations and NGOs. The fifteenth session of the Subsidiary Bodies was also held during the conference. The US did not attend the conference since it was mostly about making Kyoto Protocol operational and the US had already decided not to ratify the Protocol.

Discussions at COP-7

The discussions at COP-7 centered around the two main points: those that were agreed at COP-6 and sent to COP-7 for adoption. These were mainly concerning capacity building in developing countries, guidance to GEF for raising funds for developing countries, transfer of technology and monitoring adverse effects, and using the climate change and adaptation fund to deal with these effects.

The second lot of decisions at Marrakesh were more important and central to operationalising the Kyoto Protocol. These were:

* Articles 5, 7 and 8 of the protocol: There were agreements on Article 5, which dealt with the mechanism to assist developing countries in achieving the goals of UNFCC; Article 7 which dealt with sustainable management of greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs (mainly forests and oceans); and Article 8 which dealt with Compliance Commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

* The agreement on Forest as Sinks or on LULUCF was re-affirmed. Russia also managed to double its forest management credits as compared to what was agreed in Bonn.

* Flexible mechanisms: A decision was taken on how various emissions were to be treated as required under Articles 6 and 7 of the Kyoto Protocol. It was clarified how Assigned Amount Units (these were assigned emission units to each country at the beginning), Emission Reduction Units (these were units that were earned as a result of joint implementation of projects), and Certified Emission Reductions (these were earned by implementation of projects in developing countries under the CDM) could be traded and how these would meet the emissions commitments of countries.

* International consultation and analysis: This established a mechanism for the international review of biennial reports submitted by parties on their greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation efforts.

* Review: A procedure for review of all that was submitted on implementation of commitments by Annex I countries was agreed on, as required under Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol.

The stand of major countries and groupings who participated in COP7 was along predicted lines. Interestingly, the US participated in the discussions as an Observer since it had not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. In the absence of the US, the Umbrella Group, which consisted of Canada, Japan, Norway, New Zealand, Australia, Russia, and Ukraine, supported the Kyoto Protocol. It was, however, EU that led the way and pushed for ambitious emissions targets. It also suggested the formation of a carbon market and the implementation of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) as early as possible. The G77 plus China group welcomed the early implementation of the Kyoto Protocol but emphasised the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’.

The COP7 finalised the ‘Marrakesh Accords’, which covered the various issues discussed in detail above. These included: rules for emission trading, the CDM, joint implementation, compliance mechanisms, adaptation issues, technology transfer, and capacity building of developing countries. The COP7 also finalised a document that would be placed before the World Sustainable Summit in August-September 2002.

Three issues nearly led to the collapse of the negotiations: compliance issues, market-based mechanisms & trading rights, and treatment of forests, grasslands and other vegetation as carbon sinks. It was the leadership shown by the EU that saved the day. With Japan, Russia, Canada and Australia raising objections on the texts, it was EU that proposed compromise texts.

All in all, the COP7 was basically a continuation of the COP6 at Bonn and the time here was mostly spent on refining agreements reached at Bonn. It was therefore a technical conference. It can also be considered a success as all parties came on board and managed a consensual document reflecting the various tools needed to implement the Kyoto Protocol.

Conclusion

COP7 can be counted as one of the most successful conferences, since it managed to close differences and get everyone on board and present the world with a tool kit to implement the Kyoto Protocol. A Browne, writing in ‘The Guardian’ in an article titled ‘Historic Deal Saves Kyoto, but America Stays Outside’, praised the COP7 as having pulled off an important victory in the climate change negotiations. The stage was now set for the rolling out of the Kyoto Protocol and its implementation.

The writer is Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Mass Education Extension and Library Services and Department of Cooperation, Government of West Bengal