Flipping the script

The sixth session of the COP kicked off on November 13, 2000 at The Hague, with the participation of 182 countries and representatives from 323 intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. The primary purpose of the conference was to operationalize various decisions taken since the Buenos Aires Plan of Action (BAPA) agreement in COP-4. It may be recalled that the BAPA itself was an agreement to give effect to the emission reduction decisions taken as per the Kyoto Protocol as well as take forward the various provisions of the UNFCCC. The Subsidiary Bodies were also slated to meet for their 13th session to discuss various technical details.

Discussions at COP-6

In the Opening Plenary, the outgoing President of COP-5, Jan Szyszko, made a statement that was perhaps the most critical for the Kyoto Protocol to take off. He stated:

“……the Kyoto Protocol would enter into force once it had been ratified by 55 Parties, incorporating Annex I parties accounting in total for at least 55% of the total CO2 emissions for 1990. Therefore, a bridge of understanding providing mutual benefits must be built between developed and developing countries. This might include agreement to count as the reduction by developed countries a part of the emissions absorbed by sinks, and provision by the developed countries of effective and efficient financial assistance to developing countries.

The COP-5 President was basically saying that the demand of some developed countries led by the US to count emissions absorbed by sinks towards emission reduction commitments should be considered. He was referring to the flexibility mechanisms being pushed by the Umbrella Group of US, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and others. The EU was strongly opposed since this would have very little impact on actual emissions reduction.

Two other statements in the Plenary were important for the fight against climate change: the statement by the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, acclaiming full support to ensure that the Kyoto Protocol began operation in 2002; and the statement of the Chair of IPCC, Robert Watson, who painted a dismal picture and urged quick governmental intervention in policy responses and more investment in R&D.

In the first week, there were many informal group meetings of various negotiating groups as well as the Subsidiary Bodies, which aimed to close differences which had persisted since the past COPs. In particular, there were efforts to close the gap on issues such as transfer of technology and capacity-building to developing countries, adverse effects of climate change, sharing of best practices in reducing emissions, compliance system for Kyoto Protocol and issues related to land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF).

To help the discussions along, the President of COP-6 formed four groups on subjects that were proving difficult to close: Capacity Building & Transfer of Technology, Various Mechanisms, LULUCF and Compliance, Policies and Measures, Accounting & Reporting and Reviewing.

President’s note

When the discussions were going nowhere, the President, Jan Pronk, circulated a note with four recommendations: creation of an Adaptation Fund, a Convention Fund, formation of a Climate Resources Committee and more efforts to find more resources in the fight against Climate Change. The two funds were for supporting adaptation projects and other initiatives in LDCs and small island states and would be under the aegis of the GEF. However, even the President’s Note could not close the differences and the COP-6 was adjourned. The second part of COP-6 reconvened in Bonn in July, 2001.

Part-2 of COP-6 at Bonn

When COP-6 was on the brink of a failure, the President, Jan Pronk of the Netherlands, managed to convince everyone that COP-6 should resume in July 2001 to take another shot at closing the differences. However, even before COP-6 could reconvene, the US President George Bush, fresh from his election victory, announced that the US would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. This was a big blow since the Kyoto Protocol could come into force only if 55 countries responsible for 55% of carbon dioxide emissions ratified it.

When COP-6 reconvened in Bonn in July, 2001, the text facing the members was heavily bracketed (meaning that there were too many disagreements). The President tabled fresh texts and the negotiations resumed on the basis of these.

For a conference that had almost failed and then given a body blow in March 2001, the COP-6 resumed at Bonn in right earnest. After long hours of intense negotiations, countries managed to put together a set of agreements called the ‘Bonn Agreements’. The Bon Agreements consisted of the following:

* Agreement on funding of developing countries: Three funds were established under the overall aegis of the GEF, namely, a climate change fund, a LDC fund and an adaptation fund. The adaptation fund was under the Kyoto Protocol, while the other two funds were under the overall aegis of UNFCCC. The funding for the LDC and climate change funds was through voluntary contributions and that of the adaptation fund through CDM operations.

* Flexible mechanism: A ‘prompt’ start for joint implementation and CDM, so that credits earned from these could be used to fulfill emission reduction commitments.

* LULUCF or forests as sinks: While there was no final agreement on this issue, the text left open the possibility for subsequent agreements on activities in agriculture and afforestation. While the Umbrella Group was in favor, the EU was opposed to this.

* Compliance issues: These issues, which were critical to the success of the Kyoto Protocol, were referred to a meeting of the parties. A Compliance Committee, which comprised an Enforcement Branch and a Facilitative Branch, was agreed upon. However, the nature of the compliance instrument: whether a binding legal regime or a non-binding advisory was left for the Meeting of the Parties, which would meet after the Kyoto Protocol came into effect.

Interestingly, after the refusal of the US to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in March 2001, COP-6 was in a difficult position, since the US alone accounted for 36% of the emissions in 1990. President George Bush continued to criticize the Kyoto Protocol as being flawed even though the US National Academy of Sciences had found the IPCC third Assessment Report to be accurate and implied that Kyoto Protocol types of agreement were needed.

Conclusion

COP-6 made a dramatic comeback in its resumed session at Bonn in June, 2001 after coming to the brink of failure. It managed to address many of the issues needed to get the Kyoto Protocol off the ground. Agreements on funding of developing countries, flexible mechanisms and LULUCF or sinks were indeed remarkable and timely. Some issues that still needed attention would be pushed to the seventh Conference of Parties in Marrakesh.

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