Copenhagen: Deal or No Deal?

The “heat wave” that swept Copenhagen in the first weeks of chilly December is the true indicator of the degree of global warming. The heated discussions and arguments at the summit were much more furious than expected. Apparently it looked like an effort made by each national leader to oppose any carbon reduction policy at the best of his/her ability so as to avoid criticism in their home country. According to the participating countries, the much awaited climate summit could not bring the desired results because of the ambiguity in financial support and lack of transparency in the proposed mitigation measures. World leaders, under the obvious leadership of U.S. President Barack Obama, argued over and again, finally to go home after “taking note” of the so-called Copenhagen Accord, which is not a legally binding agreement in itself. The Accord only sets time-bound national targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG ) emissions. At this stage, the world is confused whether to call the Copenhagen deal a success or a

 

U.S. officials say they have succeeded in reaching a “meaningful agreement” with the developing countries, and the summit is a “historic first step forward” in the world’s action on addressing climate change.

At Copenhagen, the United States signed a non-binding agreement with the BASI C countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China. A global climate change mitigation target was set to limit warming to no more than 2 degrees. The fivepage document was hailed as the successful outcome of the Copenhagen summit because there was a general consensus among the world leaders that carbon reduction is the need of the hour, and the document marked a new beginning for further negotiations among them. However, the summit could not spell out any significant global emission targets for 2020 or 2050 that were expected as major outcomes of the meet.

Developed countries also agreed to give developing nations $100 billion in assistance from 2020 to help them deal with climate change, but the summit has not yet designed any specific payout plan for that. The United States has also promised to contribute $3.6 billion in climate funds for the 2010-2012 period while Japan and the European Union offered $11 billion and $10.6 billion respectively during the same period.

Barack Obama stole the entire show at Copenhagen while Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was quoted as the villain in the historical climate meeting. At the end of a weeklong drama where a series of protests signaled the red flag, Obama barged into a meeting held by the BASI C countries. “We really need a deal,” he said adamantly. “It’s better that we take one step forward rather than two steps back. I am willing to be flexible.”

The U.S. and China, accountable for 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, were the main negotiators of the deal. However, Obama was keen to appease other members of BASI C as well, as he sensed an unusual tone of cooperation among those countries for the first time in the history of climate change negotiations. It was the need of the hour to bring all of the key players onto the playing field. Along with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, the one-hour long meeting was also attended by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and South African President Jacob Zuma.

At the end of the meeting, a draft agreement was signed between the U.S. and BASI C countries. According to official reports, the draft has received the approval of the European Union, secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and 25 other countries. Official reports say a few countries, including small islands like Maldives and Tuvalu, and many African and Latin American countries, opposed the deal, so it could not be formally approved. At the end of the meeting, the Accord was simply “noted” with many countries having different opinions regarding the deal.

After the summit, Obama conceded the deal is “not sufficient” to prevent the ravages of climate change in the future. There is “much further to go,” he said. In real terms, the Copenhagen Accord was just “noted,” and not accepted by all the participating members, so the authenticity of the Accord remains questionable. However, experts have a view that since the Accord has received backing from the influential countries including the U.S and the European Union, it would become a standard for upcoming talks on climate change.

As always, the diplomatic approach of the U.S. succeeded in Copenhagen, too. Climate watchers say, “The West got away with what they did not want to – a legal binding for carbon reduction or enforcing the acceptance of a historic responsibility.”

China and India, along with other developing countries, were fighting with the rich nations to get them to accept the emissions targets set by the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol that would begin in 2013. Ironically, the new Accord exempts developed countries from legally binding emissions cuts, so developing countries now fear that the new deal would ultimately do away with the Kyoto Protocol. Developing countries favor the Kyoto Protocol, and they demand that even if the new agreement gets another name, it should preserve the essential features of Kyoto.

The Kyoto Protocol had established legally binding obligations for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, while it allows developing countries to implement national mitigation actions on a voluntary basis.

In an effort to continue talks along the Kyoto line, developing countries insisted on the two-track approach – under the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol – under which developed countries committed themselves to a collective greenhouse gas emissions target of 5.2 percent lower than 1990 levels by 2012. At Copenhagen, the interests of the industrialized countries became apparent. They wanted to dodge the mandatory obligations set by the Kyoto Protocol and force developing countries to shoulder more responsibilities than they have now.

Djemouh Kamel, chairperson of the African group, lashed out that “to kill the Kyoto Protocol was to kill Africa.” He reminded the developed countries that they had agreed in Bali two years ago on the two-track negotiation mechanism. The strong stand adopted by the developing countries could, to an extent, direct the talks in the double-track way. Despite these, experts think the new Accord will eventually replace the Kyoto Protocol. Upon asking whether the new deal would replace the Kyoto Protocol, Shyam Saran, the Indian Prime Minister’s special envoy on climate change, said in a television interview,*1 “That it opens a window, and that possibility is there of course. But that depends on how we take the negotiations forward. What I am trying to point out is that in a sense we have agreed that we will live to fight another day. We have both the tracks, which are very important to us, entirely in place for the post-Copenhagen part.”

According to Saran, the Copenhagen Accord is a significant outcome of the summit because it would further lead to negotiations on two tracks. The Copenhagen Accord has, Saran said, “Touched upon all the major outstanding issues before the negotiations and, in a sense, represented a very broad consensus of the international community.” He hopes that negotiations that were supposed to end with a Copenhagen outcome and could not succeed will now be continued with the same mandate as before.

Indian representatives at the Copenhagen summit faced wider criticism at home, especially from the opposition parties in Parliament. They argue that the Copenhagen Accord will eventually replace the Kyoto Protocol, which contains a better set of obligations to prevent carbon emissions. The only possibility to revive the Kyoto Protocol is to continue future negotiations on that track, but there are chances that if the majority of countries do not wish to follow that, the entire protocol will become extinct on its own.

Saran still thinks Copenhagen was a success because the Accord has succeeded to, in his words, “endorse the view that the developed countries have a responsibility to engage in absolute emission reductions while the major developing countries have the responsibility of mitigating the rise in their emissions.”

According to R.K. Pachauri2, chief of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, the Copenhagen Accord is a “huge diplomatic challenge” for the BASI C countries. He also said the smaller developing countries including the small island states and low lying countries should not feel alienated from the state of the BASI C group, because they too face huge the diplomatic challenge to carry all small countries with them.

Can it be called a success for developing countries?

India, along with other developing countries, did not succeed at Copenhagen on the climate front because they could not get a ‘legally binding agreement’ that would mandate the developed world to reduce emissions. On the contrary, the developing countries agreed to conduct negotiations on the basis of the Bali Action Plan. This would mean nothing but the starting of another series of conflicts between the developing world and the developed world.

Another debatable development that transpired at Copenhagen was the agreement that allows for “international consultations and analysis” at various stages of development in the developing countries. These consultations and analyses are meant to verify whether these countries are following the protocol set by the international climate council. Developing countries consider these “checks” as an intrusion to their domestic affairs and asserted they would not accept any kind of intrusive scrutiny into their national interests. China has expressed openly their view that they would not allow any infringement in their sovereignty and that there is a lot of ambiguity in the depth of the consultations and analysis presented in the clause.

India has not, so far, raised any such objections, though. Saran, the representative from India, said the country agreed to consult in terms of whatever they have put forward as information on their actions. “If there are any doubts which are raised about, for example statistics we give, any kind of data we give, that is something we are willing to clarify,” he said in the interview. “Whatever be the basis on which such consultation and analysis is carried out is also subject to agreed guidelines,” Saran continued. “That means unless we sit down and negotiate what is the basis on which this analysis is going to be carried out, this consultation is carried out, there will be no consultation and analysis.”

An Unexpected Gain for the Developing World

A significant positive outcome of Copenhagen favoring developing countries was the unconditional cooperation and support sprouted among the BASI C countries. Saran hopes that this acquaintance, which began with the common understanding on climate issues, will grow further to different levels of international cooperation and partnerships. The unified voice of these four nations will be echoed in future climate change negotiations as well. Many think that BASI C countries would emerge as a new influential force in international relations because they share some common interests, and they also face some common challenges.

Of all the friendships, the relationship between India and China was noted with international interest. As the world watched, both leaders held their hands together, probably to indicate that the ice that has accumulated over centuries on the border has begun to melt. Wen told Singh, “I admire you very much. They will try to split us, but India-China unity should hold.” Singh responded, “Mr. Premier, India will certainly stand by you.” Yes, India and China have a common goal to fight – a fight for survival on the earth. To win, they need to unite. Thanks Copenhagen.

All tags:

None

Login or register to tag items