A missed milestone

The COP15 kicked off on December 7, 2009, in Copenhagen along with the COP/MOP5 on Kyoto Protocol. The two Subsidiary Groups (Subsidiary Group For Scientific and Technological Advice or SBSTA and the Subsidiary Group for Implementation or SBI) also held their 31st sessions during the conference. The two Ad Hoc Working Groups (on Kyoto Protocol and Long-term Cooperation) also had their meetings during COP15. The COP15 at Copenhagen was an important milestone and all eyes were on the conference, since it would decide on the future of the emissions reduction regime or the Kyoto Protocol in the second commitment period, beginning in 2013. The Copenhagen conference also marked the end of the discussions and negotiations that began at Bali in COP13, two years ago.

Discussions at COP15

As discussed in the last two articles of this series, COP15 at Copenhagen was much awaited because countries had been discussing and negotiating on the shape and structure of future commitments, which would be a part of a new Protocol, which would replace the Kyoto Protocol after 2012. Despite the two year-long preparations, it appeared that developed and developing countries continued to have different expectations. While the new US President Obama had ignited hope, he and the US delegation took the stand that the Copenhagen conference would be only a political agreement. Some developing countries and small island states, on the other hand, were expecting for a legally binding agreement on various issues including for the post-2012 commitment period.

In the Opening Plenary, most leaders, including the host Prime Minister of Denmark, Lars Rokke Rasmussen, the Mayor of Copenhagen, Ritt Bjerregard and the IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri made all the right noise about making the conference a success for a better future. The UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Yve de Boer, set the tone for the conference, outlining the areas which should be in focus: mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD), capacity-building actions, ambitious emission reductions commitments, “start-up finance” of around USD 10 billion per year, and a shared vision on long-term cooperative action. Many ministers and a few Heads of States joined the conference in the first week itself, showing the seriousness with which the COP15 was being taken.

However, the discussions in the Open Plenary indicated the vast differences in the stand of various countries as well as their expectations. As the conference proceeded, questions were also raised about the non-transparent process as well as the ‘hi-jacking’ of the agenda by a few developed countries. Different views were also expressed on how to take the discussions forward: should countries meet in small groups in ‘friends of the chair’ format or not. A text prepared by the hosts, along with UK and US, which came to be called the ‘Danish text’ was leaked to the Press even as the negotiations were going on. This leaked text was a complete departure of the principles broadly agreed in the Kyoto Protocol: that the developed countries would have to share the burden of emissions reductions and developing countries would build their capacity, receive technology and also participate in the clean development mechanism by ‘hosting’ projects from the developed world. The Danish text, instead proposed handing over the climate change finance to the World Bank. The text also required developing countries to take mandatory commitments for emissions reductions. J Vidal, reporting in The Guardian at the time, wrote:

“Further, the agreement would “force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts”, “weaken the UN’s role in handling climate finance”, and “not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.33 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.76 tonnes [per person”.

Expectedly, the text caused an uproar among developing countries and an uproar in the civil society groups. The division among developing and developed countries had got starker. This was reflected in the long and acrimonious debates in the Closing Plenary. Many of the Developing countries were feeling left out and questioned the document produced titled ‘Copenhagen Accord’ at the end of the negotiations. They opposed the adoption of the Accord on grounds of a non-transparent and undemocratic negotiating process. Interestingly, even the developing countries stood divided. While Tuvalu took the stance of legally binding commitments, including for developing countries, most developing countries including China, India, Saudi Arabia opposed this. It took great efforts by the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon, to come to a conclusion. But even this was only a decision by the Conference to ‘take note’ of the Copenhagen Accord. The Accord itself had nothing new and reiterated the usual pledges to reduce emissions, financial assistance, transparency, review and assessment and even all this was only voluntary.

During the COP15, the COP/MOP5 did not meet because of the unique agenda of COP15 itself. However, the two Ad Hoc Working Groups — on Long Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) and on the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) — were active during COP15. The AWG-LCA discussed a possible climate agreement in the future, involving all countries, the financial and technological support to developing countries and the special needs of highly vulnerable countries. The AWG-KP, on the other hand, discussed the nature and shape that future commitments by developed countries would take in 2013-20, a period after the expiry of the current Kyoto Protocol commitments. It also discussed the length of the commitment period and rules of accounting for measuring emissions. Finally, the AWG-KP also discussed how the surplus Assigned Amount Units from the first commitment period could be carried over to the second period and the use of markets for emissions trading in a more widespread manner.

Conclusion

The Copenhagen conference had raised the hopes of all countries in that it was widely expected to agree on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The incoming Obama administration had also raised these hopes. In the end, the conference not only failed to live up to its expectations, but was also a failure in comparison with other conferences. The distrust between developed and developing countries only increased and the conference was caught in discussions over transparency and process rather than on more important issues. On the other hand, the Copenhagen conference did manage to bring together world leaders under one roof, including President Obama, who came towards the end of the conference and dramatically coordinated with developing countries like Brazil, China, India and South Africa to produce a Copenhagen Accord, even though a non-binding one. All eyes were now on the next conference to see how the post-Kyoto world would take shape.

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