Avik Roy:
One week is over at the 19th session of the Conference of Parties here at Warsaw. One whole week of that precious and much-hyped two-week long annual saga is told. The emotional plea of the Philippine delegation that had demanded greater action on climate change after the typhoon Haiyan fell on deaf ears at the Warsaw conference in the first week, even as the tales of misery, death and horrors started coming in from that island nation. The host country Poland’s Prime Minister gave one statement after another committing to support coal as the energy roadmap of the country in a more intensive way than before. The climate negotiations continued through Saturday night into the wee hours of Sunday morning with little significant decisions being gavelled making it apparent that the developed countries were unwilling to budge on the three critical issues that the Warsaw Conference of Parties was meant to be about: Finance for the developing world, a mechanism to provide compensation for ‘loss and damage’ to the vulnerable countries and greater climate change action in the short run.
To add to the mood of gloom Japan whisked away from its commitments to reduce emissions as the rich nations came together to block any consideration at the climate talks of accounting for historical emissions or high costs of intellectual property resources on clean technology.
A great hurry was shown although, and the Indian delegation at Warsaw pointed to it, to push through a decision on setting up new carbon markets across the world which would provide the rich countries cheaper routes to cut emissions. This came even as the developed countries tried hard to get their obligations for higher emission reduction measures between now and 2020, down played by their clamour for emission cuts post-2020. Strategically, if they are able to do so, then a greater burden of cutting emissions would have to be shared by the emerging economies in the post-2020 phase.
In the first week, the sum of the talks at Warsaw, which is only an opening moves of the chess game leading to the new global agreement in 2015 at Paris, for the major parties and blocks of countries looked like this. The developed countries looked to set the game up to ensure that the existing principles of the UNFCCC weaken. Especially the ones that draw a clear dividing line, classifying countries as developed or developing and put the burden of acting first and acting more on them. They deployed various negotiating tools at the Warsaw talks to reach that goal including the demand for recognition of ‘complimentary actions’ to cut emissions – such initiatives that would break the existing paradigm of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities — such as cutting emissions in the building sector and refrigerant gases. Their move, in this case, was supported by the more vulnerable countries that seek faster and more ambitious climate action at all cost and at lesser concern about who shall bear the burden.
Perhaps the biggest challenge at the Warsaw talks fell in the path of these small vulnerable countries – members of the Association of the Small Island states (AOSIS) and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs). In the previous years they had hitched their interests largely to that of the European Union – often called the Durban coalition — as the latter pitched itself to be the global climate leader willing to do more. It projected that it would take high emission cuts and obligations.
But the coalition’s delivered goods were spurious. They got a fast-start finance of US$30 billion. Most of it, it turned out was old money by the developed money given in a green coloured envelop. They were promised a large share of the US$100 billion annual fund by 2020. Then they heard that the developed countries preferred to resell private investments that corporates make as part of this commitment and little clarity on real delivery. They were promised greater emission reduction targets in the short run. It turned out the EU had committed to such a paltry target that it is on the way to achieving it five-to-seven years before the deadline. The US somewhat matched up to the EU standards also suggesting they would do much more nearer to the middle of this century.
Last year, coordinating closer with the African Group and the larger economies, such as the Like-Minded Developing Countries they won a significant battle to get a decision that a mechanism would be established for providing them compensation for loss and damage caused by inevitable climate change. That was the first crack in the Durban coalition as both EU and US – the latter much more – opposed such a move.
Through 2013 the developed countries made amply clear that they were neither keen on upping the paltry emission reduction targets they had taken for the shorter period of 2014-2020 or for providing a mid-term delivery target for finances. The US went all out to warn that words like liability and compensation should never get into the UN climate convention. Quoting The Hindu report, Indian negotiator said, “We are looking for implementation of previous decisions and enhancement of actions on finance, adaptation and mitigation but the draft text does not provide that. It is disappointing. We shall have to raise this issue.”
This year at Warsaw, the AOSIS and the LDC have worked closer with other developing countries ensuring that the G77 countries are together on issues like finance, loss and damage, historical emissions. They continue to work with the rich countries to push for ‘complimentary actions’ to fight climate change that do not adhere to the existing principles.
This week when the ministers are preparing to meet, the question that is doing rounds in the corridors is: Will the developed country’s representatives put together some financial package at the high-level talks? When it comes to the crunch time, the small vulnerable countries and the Africa Group would be watched to see how far they can push the developed countries to deliver a strong decision on loss and damage and a clarity that in 2014 developed economies will take leadership, as the convention and their commitment requires, and increase their emission targets for the short run. Or they could be happy with the possible financial package and instead turn to ask the emerging economies to do more in return as a trade-off.
The relatively new (but by now formidable group in the climate talks) is the Like Minded Developing Countries in which China and India play a strong role even as the BASIC four’s relations weaken. It asks for the preservation of the principles of the climate convention. It still demands leadership from the developed countries and promises to do more if the rich countries do so first. There are sceptics that think this is only a ploy to ride piggy-back out of a corner on the rather unambitious leadership that the US provides and the EU’s desire not to step too far away from US’ levels of commitments. The peer group review that the US wishes of the commitments of the countries for the 2015 agreement threatens to, they warn, could instead lead the country to a blame-game where every country stoops to do the least it can under the 2015 deal.
(The writer is a Senior Sub-Editor and Op-ed columnist at The Pioneer newspaper in New Delhi. He is currently at Warsaw, Poland, to track negotiations at the UN Climate Change conference.)