The
COP 16 of 2010 UNFCCC climate conference began in Cancun from 29th
November and will go on for 12 days though amidst much lower expectation
of achieving significant commitment from the developed countries on
decreasing carbon emissions. After the failed climate conference, COP 15
held in Copenhagen, Denmark, last year, there is not much to expect
from Cancun. In Copenhagen, the struggle of environmental activists and
delegates of the developing countries resulted only in a non-binding
agreement and a compromised and questionable text drafted late night.
So far, climate change conference results have been anything but positive; same may be repeated in Cancun.

For countries like Bangladesh, climate conferences have essentially
been reduced to negotiation for climate fund. Decision to create a new
climate fund in the UNFCCC under the authority of the Conference of
Parties is now being negotiated. This is the least Cancun may offer
although details of the fund would still have to be worked out later;
but Cancun can at least decide the process.

The UNFCCC meetings in Cancun include the 16th session of the
Conference of Parties (COP16), the 6th session of the Conference of
Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol
(CMP6), and meetings of subsidiary bodies — the Ad-hoc Working Group on
Long-term Cooperative Action (AWGLCA), the Ad-hoc Working Group on
Further Commitments for Annex 1 Parties under the Kyoto Protocol
(AWGKP), the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary
Body for Scientific and Technological Advice. (SBSTA).

Two issues are important. One is whether developed countries will
commit sincerely to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and the other is,
commitment of funds to developing countries — a commitment most
developing countries including Bangladesh is looking forward to. Given
the experience so far, there is hardly any possibility of a binding
commitment to reduce greenhouse gas. The funding assurance may end up
only in promises and papers. It is feared that the non-transparent small
group drafting process that was followed in Copenhagen might be
repeated in Cancun. We can only pray that Cancun seashore resort has
better chance of seeing more sunshine than that of ice-cold Copenhagen.

The negative impact of the Copenhagen COP 15 is that although all
predicted and unpredicted disasters and climate changes had happened in
different parts of the world, due to non-binding agreement there was
hardly any responses from developed nations. There have been many
catastrophic natural disasters including floods in Pakistan which are
linked to climate change. As it seems, in just one year the climate
issue has become much stale in the global agenda. On the other hand, the
elites of developing countries and particularly the environment
ministries who were dreaming of getting billions of dollars as their
share of the adaptation to climate disasters became dejected. No money
finally came.

In the global economic crisis and intense competition for growth
ability of Cancun conference to bring out a global climate change
agreement has much reduced even compared to Copenhagen. Experts feel the
chances are not bright at all. The unfinished tasks of Copenhagen do
not attract the world leaders to take initiative to solve the problems;
rather pre-Cancun meetings show lack of interest among the politicians.
One of the major global actors, the US administration, is reluctant to
make any commitment to cut emissions following the Kyoto Protocol. It is
almost clear that the Congress will not adopt a comprehensive climate
bill. Following the US, the other developed countries are also taking
advantage of delaying their commitments in the Kyoto Protocol’s second
period that is to start in 2013. Countries like Japan are not even
interested to extend Kyoto Protocol from its first period which will end
in 2012 and if it is extended then it will start in 2013. But it is
learnt that Japan itself may oppose Kyoto extension at COP 16. It seems
that other developed countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada
will support Japan as they are also against Kyoto’s second period.
European Union may prefer to shift to a new system. Among the developed
countries, only Norway agrees to a second Kyoto period.

It means that in COP 16, the Kyoto Protocol may see its demise which
was the only scope for the developing countries to create pressure on
the developed nations. The demand is to cut emissions by more than 40
percent by the developed countries as a group by 2020 (compared to
1990). The figures have to be re-calculated to fit 2013-2017 as the
second period proposed by the G77 and China.

The arrogant attitude of the developed nations is revealed by top
climate scientists in a new UN environment programme which shows that
instead of reducing emissions by at least 25-40 percent below 1990
level, by 2020, developed countries will actually increase their
emission by 6 percent. Developing countries were demanding reduction by
more than 40 percent. This is being anticipated if their pledge is low
and loopholes in the protocol are used. A better scenario could be like
emission cut by 16 percent if their pledges are higher and they restrain
from using the loopholes. The calculations are based on the pledges the
developed countries made under the Copenhagen Accord.

These pledges, together with the figures from announcements made by
some developing countries, show that the world is moving in the
direction of a global temperature increase between 2.5 to 5 degrees
Celsius before the end of this century, according to the UNEP report.
This is far removed from the 1.5 or 2 degree “safe limit”, and is a
recipe for disaster. This means in Cancun, one of the major and very
difficult problems to solve will be the U-turn in the attitude of most
developed counties towards their own emission reduction.

On the other hand new obligations are proposed on developing
countries to enhance their mitigation actions; those actions that are
internationally supported to be subjected to measurable, reportable and
verifiable (MRV) as agreed in Bali. The finance and technology support
provided by developed countries would also be subjected to MRV. The
mitigation actions that developing countries fund themselves do not have
to be subjected to an international MRV system.

While developed countries are not following their own obligations to
Kyoto Protocol, they are pushing developing countries to newer
obligations called the ‘Bali-Plus obligations’. These proposed
obligations include an “international consultation and analysis” (ICA)
system to be applied to mitigation actions that are unsupported, and a
much more rigorous system of reporting on overall mitigation actions
through national communications (once in four years) and supplementary
reports (once in two years). It may be recalled that the Copenhagen
Accord was not signed by all the developing countries and those who
signed did not necessarily agree with the ‘imposed’ text. So those
countries, which did not sign the Copenhagen Accord, the need to
undertake ICA does not apply to them, and those countries associated
with the Accord do not agree with the stringent MRV and ICA systems
proposed by the developed countries. Another obligation that developed
countries are seeking to place on developing countries is to give the
latter a large contributory role in the overall meeting of long-term
global emission goals, such as a 50 percent global cut by 2050 compared
with 1990. So the situation is much more complex in a more detailed way
and it is unlikely that the twelve-day Cancun summit is enough to
resolve these issues.

There is also difference of opinions between the developed and the
developing countries. This difference emerged with regards to the
creation of the new climate fund in the UNFCCC and under the authority
of the Conference of Parties (COP). The Developing countries are willing
to enhance their mitigation actions and to prepare more detailed
reports. But to accomplish these commitments, they need funds and
affordable access to new technologies to. The US has become the major
obstacle in reaching an acceptable outcome. For the US to agree to that,
there are conditionalities attached. They are demanding that there must
be a Cancun agreement on mitigation with stringent obligations on
reporting and international analysis on the part of the developing
countries, and in which developed countries undertake a pledge and
review system. The United States has clearly indicated that for it no
agreement is possible without agreement on the entire package of
elements as contained in the Copenhagen Accord, although these elements
were actually ‘not adopted’ in Copenhagen but only ‘taken note of’. But
since the draft was actually presented by the US, it sticks to it as if
it is the Agreement by all parties. This presents a major obstacle in
achieving good outcomes in Cancun, such as the establishment of a new
climate fund and of the technology mechanism.

Bangladesh is participating in the COP 16, as one of the highest top
ranking countries according to Global Climate Risks Index (GCRI) 2009,
among 193 countries of the world. It is one of the most affected by the
adverse impacts of climate change such as rising sea level, floods and
heat waves. The other countries in this list are Myanmar, Honduras,
Vietnam, Nicaragua, Haiti, India, Dominique Republic, the Philippines
and China. The Global Climate Risks Index (GCRI) 2009 conducted by
Germanwatch on an annual basis since 2007, reported that on average
8,241 people are to die annually in Bangladesh because of climate-change
effects. Bangladesh incurs an annual financial loss of 2,189 million US
dollars, which puts 1.81 percent negative impact on the country’s Gross
Domestic Products (GDP). The sea levels in the Bay of Bengal rose about
3 millimetres a year until 2000, but have been rising about 5
millimetres annually over the last 10 years. According to the report,
Bangladesh had to suffer both from significant number of deaths as well
as direct economic losses exceeding 10 billion US dollars (in Purchasing
Power Parties) among the countries most affected in 1998-2007 period.
While analysing the impacts during the last decade (1998-2007) Honduras,
Bangladesh and Nicaragua ranked highest.

The GCRI in its report analysis blamed a total of 37 industrialised
countries for the ongoing climate change impact. So the solution does
not only lie in getting more climate funds but to pressurise the
developed countries to reduce their emissions to 40 percent. Reality
tells us that there is lack of ability for the developing countries as
well as inbuilt weakness within the conference process to assert that
pressure. Climate Fund without pledges of emission cuts from the
developed countries will be like giving treatment to the patient who is
already dead. Unfortunately, our government delegates are not strong
enough in putting pressures, but more efficient in asking for money.

Reference: TWN Cancun News Update No.1 & 2: 29 November 2010