Navigating through riddles

The COP12 was held in Nairobi from November 6 to 17, 2006, along with the second Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP2). It may be recalled that it was decided in COP11 that the climate negotiations would proceed on two tracks: one was the usual Conference of Parties under the overall aegis of UNFCCC and the Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, which would discuss the implementation and other issues related to the protocol. The two subsidiary bodies also met during the conference. The second meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group of Annex I parties was also held during this time.

Discussions

The common theme in both tracks was a discussion on the long-term action plan on climate change after the first period of commitments (2008-2012) of the Kyoto Protocol ended. While the COP12 discussed the Kyoto review, the focus of developed and developing countries was different. While developed countries wanted to review how future commitments would be made, developing countries wanted to review how effective the developed country commitments had been so far and what would be needed to meet the overall target to keep the globe from heating up more than 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius. In the COP/MOP2, the review of the Kyoto Protocol was more to do with making CDM more effective and related issues.

The COP12 was opened by the Vice President of Kenya, stating that sub-Saharan Africa would bear the brunt of climate change and therefore any solution for the post-2012 period would have to be globally equitable. The COP12 elected the Kenyan Environment Minister as the President of the Conference, who referred to the Stern Report and the economic consequences of climate change discussed therein. According to him, the main issues for discussion during COP12 would be:

• Activities for the five-year programme of work on adaptation;
• Encouraging equitable distribution of CDM projects;
• Relying on the Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT) for “new thinking” on technology transfer and strengthening the EGTT;
• Other issues such as joint implementation and other flexibility mechanisms.

The main discussions in COP12 revolved around the issues highlighted above. Adaptation measures came in for much discussion and the enhanced support for such measures, including the setting up of an Adaptation Fund, were discussed. The COP12 also discussed the issues of reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) and ways to support developing countries in such REDD initiatives.

The developing country issues of technology transfer and capacity building were also discussed at great length. Finally, various aspects related to implementation of the CDM were discussed in detail, including the equitable distribution of CDM projects across the world. In particular, the poor representation of African countries in the CDM projects was highlighted. Despite the announcement by Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, that the UNFCCC, UNEP, World Bank and the African Development Bank would work to address this geographic inequity in CDM projects, little was ultimately done to put such projects in Africa. Even the EGTT was given an extension for only one year, because developed countries weren’t ready to put more funds to make it a meaningful forum for technology transfer.

Towards the end (November 15-16), the COP12 delegates also got to interact and hear a presentation by the World Bank on an Investment Framework on Clean Energy and Development. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, authored by the well-known British climate economist Nicholas Stern, was also presented. Stern cautioned that while the costs to manage the fallout of climate change could be as high as 5 to 20 per cent of global GDP, cutting greenhouse gas emissions would cost only 1 per cent of global GDP. Moreover, a 10-year delay in taking action would only double the annual rate of decline in emissions required and would put an increasingly unbearable burden of adaptation on developing countries. The Pocantico Dialogue, a not-for-profit organisation, also stressed that multiple forms of commitment and actions would be necessary to address the emissions challenge. There were other presentations on China’s 11th Five Year Plan, impact of hurricanes on Small Islands, Brazil’s proposal to provide incentives to reduce deforestation in developing countries and integrating climate change into development strategies.

The other track of discussions, namely the COP/MOP2, reviewed the Kyoto Protocol and discussed ways to make its implementation smooth and effective. These discussions included issues such as emissions reduction targets, compliance mechanisms and the various flexibility mechanisms. Some of the issues discussed in the COP12 found an echo in the COP/MOP2 track of discussions. In particular, the role of the CDM in emissions reductions and the emphasis on strengthening adaptation measures was discussed in COP/MOP2 as well. Another important issue discussed was how future commitments in the post-2012 period were to be made, how stringent would they be and which countries would they cover. In the COP/MOP2 discussions, the AWG (Ad Hoc Working Group), which was formed in MOP1, had its second workshop, where the scientific basis of future commitments were discussed. In a presentation, the IPCC urged that carbon dioxide concentrations should fall to below half of the levels in the year 2000.

At the end of the COP12, the Nairobi Work Programme was adopted, which broadly consisted of the following decisions:

• Launch of the adaptation fund, which would fund adaptation projects in developing countries and would be funded by the fees collected through CDM projects;
• Agreement to develop guidelines for REDD projects;
• Reforming the CDM to make it more effective and also more equitable, geographically;
• Continued efforts on transfer of technology through the EGTT and capacity building in developing countries.

Conclusion

COP12 and COP/MOP2 continued to keep the ball on Kyoto Protocol rolling, even though there was no major breakthrough in challenging issues such as future commitments, CDM reforms and increased funds for adaptation. As the leader of the EU delegation, Jan Erik Enestam of Finland noted: “we have proved we are not ‘climate tourists’, but are serious about taking action on climate change”. She was responding to a comment of a Masai woman who said that COP12 delegates were climate tourists, only taking snaps of wildlife in Nairobi and the poor and dying children of Africa. The COP12 ended on a sombre note underlying the ever-greater challenges ahead.

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