The 20th Session of the UN Global Change Conference (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change –UNFCC) which was held for two weeks from 2nd December in Lima (Peru) was attended by 196 countries.

It had two objectives: First was the adoption of an outline of a text for the 2015 Paris global agreement. The second was to agree on the terms under which greenhouse gas would be reduced.

Both the objectives seemed to be unattainable because of global climate politics was involved. Another reason was whether the economic development would be accorded priority over degradation of environment as advocated by the developing countries such as India, Brazil and Indonesia.

Differences arose
In his speech, the US Secretary of State John Kerry said no country should have a “free pass”.” I know this is difficult for developing nations. We have to remember that today more than half of emissions are coming from developing nations, so it is imperative that they act too.”

But this approach was resisted by a number of countries, including China and many others, who wanted to adhere to the idea of “common but differentiated responsibilities”.

A further controversy was over the idea that there must be some sort of review process before a new deal would be signed. It was essentially an effort to compare and contrast what countries had promised in the run up to Paris. The idea, called an “ex-ante review”, was seen as very important by the European Union. But developing countries including India were dead set against it. They argued it was an issue of sovereignty. Outside parties, they argued, should not have the power to review what countries would commit to by themselves.

Lima Accord
Given the background, the Lima Accord has been the best outcome of the Conference even after one extra day and night was extended to reach the Lima Accord. The objectives are partially achieved and difficult issues were left for the sessions in February in 2015.

The Lima Accord is the first draft text of a global Climate agreement on reducing greenhouse gas by all states and in that sense it has been a success because it represented a breakthrough in the two-decade effort to forge a significant global agreement to fight climate change.

The reluctant states had to agree because no one is seen to be accused of wrecking the conference. There was a peer pressure on the states which initially did not agree to the draft and that is why at 2 AM in the morning after 36 hours of negotiations on 14th December, a text was agreed.

The draft text has the following agreement
1. Each nation is required to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emission by March to June next year laying out how much each would cut after 2020 and what domestic policies/actions it would adopt to achieve the cuts.

2. The plans of each country would be posted on a United Nations website and made available to the public.

3. Each state will lay out its plans dictated by its economy and domestic politics, rather than a top down mandate from the Lima Accord. There is much room for flexibility for each state to put forward its plan which would form the basis of a global pact to be signed in Paris in December 2015.

The weaknesses of the Lima Accord are the following among others:
1. The Lima Accord could not provide a legally binding agreement for all states on reducing the greenhouse gas. In stead each state would work out appropriate action plans taking into account its energy efficiency and relative advantages of different renewable technologies and options within its geographic region. As a result reduction of greenhouse gas for each state would be different.

2. The Accord could not provide the amount of funds for the Global Climate Fund. No consensus was reached whether it would be $100 billion or $150 billion by 2030.

3. No consensus was reached on availability of the ratio of funds for mitigation or adaptation. This means whether the funds would be allocated for a 50/50 ratio between mitigation and adaptation or the ratio 90/10 in favour of mitigation. Most of the most vulnerable countries including Bangladesh support the ration of 50/50 between the mitigation and adaptation.

Other ideas focussed
The Lima Conference brought into sharp focus of green entrepreneurship, accelerating investment shifts, and devoting on renewable energy. Other factors such as deforestation, ocean acidification, technology transfer, novel uses of energy, the effect of climate change on traditional gender roles and the interplay between youth and climate change came up in the conference for reducing the greenhouse gas.

Another topic has been aired in Lima whether the goal of climate change should shift from mitigation toward adaptation. Nations like the US and Australia where denial of climate change has caused divisive political behaviour should recognize that being stuck in the mitigation-only perspective would hold back efforts to enable saner energy and a less threatening way of life.

Criticisms
Jane Cohen from the Human Rights Watch reportedly said that we were hoping to come away from Lima with a good basis for a robust climate agreement that protected the human rights of people around the world. Unfortunately what happened in Lima fell far short of that, with a weak decision on emissions and virtually no progress on protecting the rights of millions of people who are and will be affected by climate change.”

Action Aid representative reportedly said: “For developing countries this was no outcome at all. There is no new money to help them adapt to climate impacts or transition to cleaner economies. There is no assurance that they will be supported in their efforts to deal with loss and damage. And hope is rapidly fading that developed countries will act urgently to reduce their emissions to stop the climate crisis from getting worse.”

Secular environmental groups also saw the Lima Accord lacking, though for other reasons. The World Wildlife Fund called it “half-baked,” criticizing the few specifics on emission-cutting plans or financing for the Green Climate Fund, currently at $10 billion by expected to provide by 2020 $100-150 billion annually to developing nations for mitigation and adaptation efforts.

Concluding remarks
The UN reportedly stated that the accord in Lima would help bring transparency and accountability to that process by requiring national plans to be posted publicly. As cities and businesses increasingly would measure and report on their climate goals, their progress would be vital as States would move toward the next round of negotiations.

Finally, there are some inherent limitations to what any international treaty can do. There is no global legislature that can use a majority vote to pass treaties that are legally binding on all countries. Countries are generally not bound by the treaties they don’t sign or ratify. It is hard to see what alternatives there are to the approach taken in Lima given the structural limitations of global law and treaty-making.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid Former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva

(Dhaka Courier)