Shadowed commitments
Sponsored controversially by a coal company, COP24 at Katowice was a procedural conference aimed at operationalising the Paris Agreement, but it marked slow emissions-cutting progress despite increasing adverse impacts of climate change
The COP24 was held in Katowice, Poland, from December 2-15, 2018. In accordance with past practice, the three subsidiary bodies, namely the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI), and the Ad hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (APA) also met during the conference. The COP24 also coincided with the governing bodies of the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. The main focus of COP24 was to complete the work on the Paris Agreement Work Programme (PAWP), which was mainly to develop the ‘rule book’ for the Agreement. This was supposed to basically operationalise the Paris Agreement, including the setting of standards which could measure, report, and verify emissions cuts and achieve Nationally Determined Contributions. The other issues taken up for discussion were Mitigation, Adaptation, Finance, Technology, Transparency and a Global stock taking.
Discussions
The Paris ‘rule book’ was the main focus of COP24, as mentioned above. This book would set standards to measure, report and verify emissions cuts. However, the biggest obstacle was that of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’, an issue that had been repeated in all COPs by developing countries ever since the first conference in Berlin in 1995. While the Paris Agreement had cleverly side-stepped the developed and developing country strait-jacket, the differences between the two had persisted. The other components of the Paris ‘rule book’ were: a Transparency Framework in reporting emissions cuts and climate action, guidance on NDCs, outlining a process for a global stocktake, finance reporting for developed countries to inform on their contributions and guidelines on carbon market formation.
Apart from the Paris ‘rule book’, the following issues were discussed:
- The Talanoa dialogue: This dialogue which was launched in COP23 was concluded. This basically took stock of the collective efforts taken and set a benchmark for the next round of NDCs. It also wanted a higher ambition so that global warming could be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
- IPCC Special Report: This was a report tabled a few months earlier and discussed various severe impacts if global warming were to rise by 1.5 degrees Celsius and the need for urgent action.
- Finance: The issues of long-term finance of mobilising USD 100 billion by 2020 and building up the Green Climate Fund were reiterated. The Adaptation Fund, set up under the Kyoto Protocol, was to continue under the Paris Agreement.
- Loss and Damage: The Warsaw International Mechanism was recalled and further discussed, even though financial support for the initiative was not forthcoming.
- Gender Issues: The implementation of the Gender Action Plan, increasing women’s participation in decision-making and integrating gender issues into climate policies were discussed.
COP24 was marked by two very forceful interventions: one by David Attenborough, the British broadcaster, biologist and natural historian, and the second by the teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg. David Attenborough gave a rousing speech warning of disasters such as species extinction and end of civilisation. In his words: “if we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon”. Attenborough was one of the first presenters of the People’s Seat Address, a new COP innovation, which raised participation by the people and invited their experiences. Greta Thunberg spoke of climate justice and inter-generational equity. In her words: “our biosphere is being sacrificed so that rich people in countries like mine [Sweden] can live in luxury {…} you say you love your children above all else and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes {…} until you start focusing on what needs to be done instead of what is politically possible, there is no hope {…} if solutions within this system are so impossible to find, then maybe we should change the system itself {…} we have come here to let you know that change is coming whether you like it or not; the willpower belongs to the people”.
It was perhaps in response to comments like those of Thunberg that ‘The Solidarity and Just Transition Silesia Declaration’ was adopted. This was basically to recognise the rights of workers and ensure a fair transition for workers and communities affected by the transition to a low carbon economy.
In the negotiations, there were a few dramatic moments: one was when Brazil continued to stick to its guns on getting extra carbon credits for their massive rainforest. Brazil argued that any carbon credits arising out of forests should be additional to the ones that are earned by direct emission cuts. This was objected to by many on the grounds that it would result in double counting. Ultimately, there was no decision and the issue was pushed to COP25. Another moment was on how to treat the IPCC Special Report on reducing global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. While most countries wanted to ‘welcome’ the report, the US and Saudi Arabia pushed for ‘noting’ the report rather than welcoming it. Small island nations also wanted a single rulebook for all countries, developed and developing. They also wanted the inclusion of loss and damage compensation in the rule book.
The COP24 was able to develop a text acceptable to all countries by the end of the conference. The Katowice Climate Package was adopted which included the development of a ‘rule book’ for the Paris Agreement, Loss and Damage, Finance, Mitigation, Adaptation and many other issues as discussed above.
Conclusion
The COP24 was mostly a procedural conference aimed at operationalising the Paris Agreement. The conference was however criticised by civil society groups because of the sponsorship by a coal company. There was also concern among many observers of the Conference about the slow progress, particularly in the commitments to cut emissions. The IPCC Special Report on limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius was also a timely pointer to the devastation that would be unleashed upon agriculture, oceans and coral reefs. However, even this report was debated on non-serious matters such as whether to ‘welcome’ or ‘note’ the report. Gareth Redmond-King, the head of climate change at WWF UK, commented: “These talks are critical to ensuring we get to 2020 on track to meet the Paris targets and avoid runaway climate change. The time to step up is now. We need all countries to signal they will increase their climate ambition by 2020.”
The writer is Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Mass Education Extension and Library Services and Department of Cooperation, Government of West Bengal