Climate change conference- World leaders fail to act again

Climate change conference- World leaders fail to act again

Little headway was made at the un climate change conference held in Nairobi, Kenya, from November 6 to 17, 2006. The most important issue, mandating commitments to cutting carbon emissions, was stonewalled, with the us refusing to budge from its stated positions, as expected, and the European Union pushing for emission cuts across the board. The developing world, especially China, India and Brazil, refused to countenance proposals that could jeopardise their growth push, given the North's reluctance to make the drastic cuts necessary to meet the climate change challenge. The only major area in which there was some progress was in setting up a fund to help developing countries adapt to climate change. But even then only a beginning was made, with negotiations getting mired in North-South differences.

What did emerge, incontestably, was that the international community still refuses to address the problems of climate change and global warming despite the fact that scientific evidence is piling up (see graphs High on growth). It is becoming increasingly clear, virtually by the day, that now is the time to deal with greenhouse gases. And it is not just the scientific evidence. Economists, too, have been weighing in with studies that show that if dealt with now, the costs will be far lower than previously estimated and that arguments counterposing economic growth and profitability of big industrial enterprise with emission control are fallacious.

For our in-depth analysis on climate change impacts click here.

Next (Unfinished business)>>

Unfinished business

The climate change conference, attended by 189 countries, had two components the 12^th Conference of Parties (cop-12) to the un Framework Convention on Climate Change (unfccc) and the second conference of the parties serving as the meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol (cop/mop-2). Australia and the us are the most prominent countries that have not ratified the protocol and neither made any concessions in their positions -- that set the tenor of the deliberations.

"We are ready to take up another commitment period but action has to be there from all countries" Humberto D Rosa secretary of state of the environment, Portugal

cop-12 was supposed to be the 'Africa cop', with most participants from the developed world talking about Africa and the most vulnerable countries. The outcomes were, however, disappointing. "Nothing significant was achieved.All that was important was men and women wearing expensive suits and blabbing. When I go back to my area and I am asked what was discussed, I would say nothing, as nothing of relevance to us was seriously taken up," said Sharon Loormetta, a Kenya-based activist. This view was echoed by members from the North. "This time most of the delegates are from Africa, but even they seem to be missing. I think the charm of an African safari is greater than deciding the world's future," said Thomas Micholitsch, an official of the federal ministry of finance, Austria. "This cop is quite different from the others because the volume of contact groups is not that many. Also, the agenda itself is not that heavy," he added.

"Lack of urgency from the ministers forestalled the process of constructive debate. There was very little collective spirit despite the fact that in numerous events during the conference it was underlined that future delay would just increase the cost of mitigation and adaptation measures. What we would have liked to see at the end of cop were strong deadlines on Article 3.9 (emissions control), which relates to future commitments of the developed countries. But this was never done. Unless a clear timetable emerges, there will not be enough time to get new targets into place before 2012, when those agreed at Kyoto expire," said Catherine Pearce, international climate campaigner with Friends of the Earth, the uk.

But delegates from the developed world had a different opinion. "We came here to drive progress on adaptation issues and pave the way for further strong action to cut emissions, and that is what we have done. Now we need to ensure that action follows urgently," said Jan-Erik Enestam, the Finnish environment minister who led the eu.

"We came here to drive progress on adaptation issues and pave the way for strong further action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and that is what we have done. Now we need to ensure that action follows urgently" Jan-Erik Enestam the Finnish environment minister

The nitty-gritty of negotiations dominated, making this cop a bit of a sedate affair. Things were livened up a little by a small protest. Halfway through the conference, thousands of demonstrators marched in Nairobi to protest what they called was a failure by industrialised countries to curb global warming. About 2,500 people marched through the streets of Nairobi, indicting us president George Bush "for crimes against the planet". Many blamed the us for holding up progress after rejecting the Kyoto agreement.

Errors of emission
The conference did not seize the opportunity to take decisions needed for deeper emission cuts beyond 2012. The delegates did acknowledge that global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced 50 per cent by 2050, but the negotiations did not augur well for the deadline."Our leaders must recognise that scientific evidence and public opinion demands much stronger action than what was agreed in Nairobi," stressed Hans Verolme, director of wwf's global climate change programme.

But that wasn't about to happen. The us did not change its position, preferring to showcase minor initiatives to fight climate change. During a press conference, Paula Dobriansky, the under-secretary of state for democracy and global affairs, said, "We think the us has been leading in its ground-breaking initiatives." She then listed several measures, including financial incentives for businesses to reduce pollution and domestic rules. Dobriansky, the top us official at the conference, also argued that the best way to battle global warming was a mix of voluntary partnerships between developing and wealthy countries that foster economic growth while limiting pollution. "The most effective strategies on climate change are those that are integrated with economic growth, with energy security, and with reducing air pollution," she said.

On the lack of us leadership, Dobriansky at the press conference responded saying that the us is a world leader as far as climate change policy is concerned. "All countries must be engaged in the effort. Post elections, in terms of a change in the Congress's stance, there are people for and against the Kyoto Protocol among the Democrats and Republicans."

Key eu members were noncommittal. When questioned by Down to Earth (DTE) on future commitments, David Miliband, uk's environment secretary, said his country was willing to take up commitments depending on future circumstances. During his speech at a high-level segment discussion, Miliband said the uk was committed to a 60 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide by 2050, without specifying the base year.

"Nothing significant was achieved. All that was important was men and women wearing expensive suits and blabbing " Sharon Loormetta an activist from Kenya

Other countries, too, adopted a stance that was not conducive to progress. On the first day, for instance, Australian delegates compared their situation to that of African and the Pacific countries, a position that was scarcely tenable. Japan threatened to "shrink its commitment" post-2012, if it was forced to take hard decisions by 2008. At the ministerial plenary, Canadian environment minister Rona Ambrose said Canada would reduce emissions by 65 per cent by 2050 with 2003 as the base year and not 1990, as agreed upon. There is a 27 per cent difference. Earle G Baddaloo, director, environment protection, department of environment, Canada, took recourse in "technical reasons" for not meeting its Kyoto targets. This angered activists, who blamed the new Canadian government for cutting down 80 per cent of climate funding.

Old chestnut
Most developed nations DTE spoke to about the next commitment period indicated that it would only be possible if countries like India and China are a part of it. "We are ready to take up another commitment period but action has to be there from all countries," said Humberto D Rosa, secretary of state of the environment, Portugal. The country's stand is very important because it will have the eu presidency during the next cop. "We need everybody on deck, as developed countries are responsible for a less percentage of global warming now. Action taken only by the developed world would not be an answer. Even if we curb our emissions, the problem will persist," said Outi Berghall, director, International Climate Project, ministry of environment, Finland.

But developing countries were not ready to take up commitments and tried their best to defer a review of existing commitments."India is ready for a review of the protocol, as it is legally mandatory. Everybody knows why the developing countries are being pushed for it. A review may be a way to make developing countries take up commitments. What India is asking is that a review process should be started and finished here at Nairobi, as it is stated in the Kyoto text. We are neither supporting nor opposing a review. But Article 9 also states that there are connected reviews (of the present commitments of the developed world) which should be undertaken while reviewing the protocol. It is yet to be seen how the developed world undertakes this entire task," said Prodipto Ghosh, secretary, Union ministry of environment and forests.

The issue of a review remained unresolved. Article 9 of the Kyoto Protocol says, "The cop serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall periodically review this Protocol in the light of the best available scientific information and assessments... the first review shall take place at the second session of the cop serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol. Further reviews shall take place at regular intervals and in a timely manner."

"Rapid cuts in carbon emissions are essential. It is very clear from the climate change impacts we are seeing in places like Kenya. We need the negotiations for post-2012 commitment period to start next year and finish by 2008" Andrew Pendleton Climate analyst, Christian Aid.

While some developing countries viewed this provision with suspicion, believing that it might open the door to binding cuts in emissions, eu and some other developed nations wanted a thorough examination of emission targets and other components of the protocol.

Developing countries stressed that Article 9 talked about a "review" and not "revision". The cop/mop finally decided that a second review would take place in 2008 and should not lead to new commitments. "Parties aborted attempts at a first comprehensive review of the protocol during this meeting. But it is necessary to do the second review by 2007. There is widespread agreement that this review will not consider emissions reduction obligations for non-Annex 1 (developing) countries," said Steve Sawyer, an expert in climate and energy with Greenpeace International.

"A review is intended to inform the negotiations of future commitments by Annex 1 countries. In fact, 2008 already risks delaying the process. Any later date would lead to a gap in commitment periods, undermining the clean development mechanism (cdm) and opportunities to scale up adaptation," said Juan Hoffmaister, United Nations Environment Programme youth advisor for North America.

But these arguments have to be seen in the context of Article 3.9 of the protocol, which relates to the future commitments of developed countries post-2012, which says commitments for developed countries after 2012 shall be established at least seven years before that year. In pursuance of this objective, during the 2005 cop in Montreal, an ad hoc working group was constituted on further commitments. During this cop, the group focused on Annex I commitments in the second commitment period and on the development of a work plan and schedule of meetings.

But eventually, there was no deal on another round of commitments. The agreement struck at Nairobi only set a tentative date for beginning negotiations, but no timeframe for concluding them. "Rapid cuts in carbon emissions are essential. It's very clear from the climate change impacts we're seeing in places like Kenya. We need the negotiations for post-2012 commitment period to start next year and finish by 2008," said Andrew Pendleton, climate analyst with the ngo Christian Aid.

During the discussions, eu stressed that action by Annex I parties (developed countries) would not be sufficient to tackle climate change, and Australia proposed that a future framework should include all major emitters. However, the g-77/China argued that it was not the task of the ad hoc working group to define a long-term goal other than the one already agreed upon.

After informal consultations, a compromise outcome was adopted. It was decided that the working group would seek inputs from external bodies and forums and scheduled its third session in May 2007 and its fourth session probably in September/October, in conjunction with the unfccc dialogue.

This decision meant that the delegates failed to set themselves a deadline for reaching agreement on new targets. "Key economic instruments for tackling climate change, such as carbon trading, could collapse without a firm timetable," said Arvind A Boaz, director-general of the South Asia Cooperative Environment Programme, Sri Lanka.

Next (Trading schemes)>>

Trading schemes

The issue of the carbon market and cdm focused on carbon capture and storage (ccs), non-renewable and renewable biomass, and regional distribution of cdm projects. While some parties, including eu, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Canada, Norway and South Africa, expressed a clear interest in accessing ccs technology under the cdm, others opposed it for various reasons. Brazil expressed fears that such technology could massively impact the current cdm portfolio. "ccs would crowd out other cdm projects.Like us, the Alliance of Small Island States is equally concerned about the technical uncertainties surrounding ccs, such as seepage, storage, boundaries and long-term liability," said Fernando Antonio Lyrio Silva, adviser for international affairs, ministry of environment, Brazil.

"Carbon capture and storage technologies will reduce the need for increasing international expenditure on renewable energy since it will provide clean and environmentally sound oil supplies," countered Saudi Arabian oil minister Ali Ibrahim Naimi. But Yvo de Boer, one of unfccc's top officials, warned that it was unknown how permanently carbon can be buried. "Who would be responsible if it escapes?" he asked while talking to DTE.

Afforestation and reforestation issues were raised by Brazil, Colombia, Bolivia and a number of other Latin American countries, who objected to what they regarded as a restrictive interpretation by the cdm executive board of procedures for defining land eligibility for cdm projects. The debate was about the methodologies to demonstrate that land proposed for a cdm project was not a forest when a project started. An agreement was reached when eu conceded that parties should invite the cdm executive board to revisit the issue, and deal with relevant project proposals on a case-by-case basis in the interim.

Equitable distribution of cdm projects, which are now bagged mostly by India and China, was also an important concern. "Very strong concerns were expressed by the African countries not getting access to cdm projects. The only way out is capacity building," said Boer. The eu conceded on an African group proposal to "insert language" that encourages Annex I countries to engage in initiatives, including financial support, for cdm projects in least developed countries. "But the eu just spoke about inserting language; nothing in this world happens without funding. So we have to wait and watch what happens," said Sawyer.

Another result of the cdm debate was to defer a decision on the controversial issue of whether or not to include new hfc-23 projects into the carbon trading regime. Companies manufacturing hcfc-22, a gas used in refrigeration, generate a by-product called hfc-23. The global warming potential of carbon dioxide is 1; hfc-23's potential is 11,700 it is that potent. Companies now earn cdm benefits if they capture and destroy hfc-23 before it goes into the atmosphere.

Next (Some progress)>>

Some progress

The principles and modalities of a five-year programme to generate information on climate change and its impacts was the first issue to be resolved and adopted. It was hailed as a major step forward for developing nations. Under this programme, steps will be taken to assist all parties, in particular developing countries, to improve their understanding of impacts, vulnerability and adaptation, and to make informed decisions on practical adaptation actions and measures.

Monkeys and peanuts The saga of developing countries fighting among themselves continued, with the operational entity of the adaptation fund

"This is merely a starting point.What the g-77 would have preferred was to have a full five-year work programme. But right now work for two years has been decided. A full scope of activities for five years would have made the programme more effective. The us, supported by Canada, emphasised limiting the discussion to initial activities. We wanted a very action-oriented programme. The process of setting up the principles and modalities was difficult since the needs of different countries vary. Some of the least developed countries (ldcs) are still not happy with the outcome of this," said Judy Beaumount, chief director, environment and sustainable development cooperation, environmental affairs and tourism department, South Africa, who was heading the g-77 group for negotiations on this programme.

Adaptation fund
The second, and more important, issue that was resolved was about the principles and modalities of an adaptation fund, funded by a two per cent levy on the cdm transactions. After much wrangling, it was decided that the fund, which has only us $3 million at present, will be managed by cop/mop. Developed and developing countries originally only agreed to the principles and modalities of the fund, and not its management. Developed countries like Norway, Switzerland and Japan wanted the global environment facility (gef) to manage the fund, but developing countries did not want that, given gef's past record, and wanted its management by an executive body, with equitable regional representation. "Where the adaptation fund is concerned, I think we should be very careful about taking a decision on the operational entity. It is a very important issue, and I would rather have the decision delayed than taking one in haste that the developing world may regret later on," said Ghosh. "There was friction among the developing countries even where the fund is concerned. China is not against the gef being the operational entity. Why should it be, as it gets 50 per cent of the gef funding," said Mohamad Reazuddin, chair of the ldc group. Finally, the views of the developing countries prevailed.

But this victory will have to be followed by strong domestic policies if adaptation is to become a meaningful frame of action. This will mean much greater emphasis on generating research and data on climate change. That will mean, in the first place, acknowledging the reality of climate change, its deleterious effects and the enormity of the problem. Unfortunately, if the Indian case is any indication, there does not seem to be any movement in that direction. The Indian establishment has buried its head in the sand and far from proceeding with coordinated research as a basis of policy formulation, tends to ignore the evidence that is being amassed elsewhere.

Next (Impacts of climate change - Unknown future)>>

Unknown Future

The conference of parties to the un climate convention in Nairobi went along predictable lines. In the 12 years of the convention, political rhetoric may not have changed much -- the us and its cronies continue to shun accountability, the eu goes on playing its nefarious game of politically correct non-action, and developing countries continue fighting over peanuts, getting divided into ever smaller groups.

But the status quo is not as pervasive as made out to be. Climate behaviour, for instance, has gotten increasingly unpredictable in these 12 years. The most obvious manifestation of this is the increase in the average atmospheric temperature -- earlier, it was believed that only the maximum temperatures are increasing, but now even the minimum temperatures have recorded increases across the world.In India, average surface temperature has risen by half a degree Celsius in the past 105 years, says the India Metrological Department. Natural calamities are becoming more frequent. Most climate scientists agree on the term 'global warming'.

What is not agreed upon is the cause of these changes. Are these due to natural processes? Or because of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from industrial growth? This is one of the -- if not the most -- crucial questions facing humankind. The answers depend on our scientific understanding of the complexities of climate behaviour. A notoriously nebulous discipline, there are too many variables in climate science. Hence the margins of error are uncommonly large.

But is it impossible to know whether the climate changes happening in India and the rest of the world are a result of the greenhouse effect? Or is this only the the result of overheated imaginings of doomsday-mongers? Down To Earth grapples with the known and the unknown of climate science in India.

Next (Climate change a market failure)>>

Climate change a market failure

In 2003, when he was appointed permanent secretary to the uk government's treasury, Nicholas Stern was the World Bank's chief economist.In July 2005, the uk government gave him the job of studying climate change from an economics perspective. The resultant Stern Review was released on October 30, 2006 -- just before the 12^th conference of parties to the un climate convention, where it was a hot topic of conversation. It is an examination of the evidence of the economic impacts of climate change. But Stern's brief wasn't restricted to studying the problem. He was also to economically assess the options of stabilising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The review makes for some sobering politico-economic reading; doesn't matter if the uk government refuses to use it in domestic policies, but only to leverage developing countries.

"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming climate change presents very serious global risks, and it demands an urgent global response," is how the review opens. "Climate change presents a unique challenge for economics it is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen. The economic analysis must therefore be global, deal with long time horizons, have the economics of risk and uncertainty at centre stage, and examine the possibility of major, non-marginal change," the review states. While a lot of economists have dismissed Stern's economics as flawed, the larger point is not lost. Climate change has now entered mainstream economics.

It estimates the overall costs and risks of climate change in the region of at least 5 per cent of the global gdp each year if no action is taken. The damage estimate increases to 20 per cent of the global gdp if a wider range of risks is accounted for. Stern has warned of risks on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20^th century.

"Warming will have many severe impacts, often mediated through water Melting glaciers will initially increase flood risk and then strongly reduce water supplies, eventually threatening one-sixth of the world's population, predominantly in the Indian sub-continent, parts of China, and the Andes in South America," the review projects.

It talks of decreasing crop yields in Africa, leaving hundreds of millions without the ability to produce or purchase sufficient food. "Ecosystems will be particularly vulnerable to climate change, with around 15-40 per cent of species potentially facing extinction after only 2c of warming. And ocean acidification, a direct result of rising carbon dioxide levels, will have major effects on marine ecosystems, with possible adverse consequences on fish stocks."

His conclusion is quite unambiguous "The benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs."

India in the storm's eye
The Stern Review estimates an increase of 20 per cent in India's average summer rainfall and its intensity; this will most likely affect agriculture and, therefore, its economy. It estimates India's economic losses due to climate change in the region of 0.67 per cent of the gdp each year. It also details the regional variations. Northern India will be warmer. All states will experience increased rainfall, except Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, where it will decrease. Incidents of extreme rainfall will increase, particularly along the western coast and west central India, affecting agriculture in Gujarat, Maharashtra and Karnataka.

Given that India has long been marked out as one of the countries likely to be badly hit -- and the fact that signs of climate change are already becoming apparent -- it is imperative that substantial investments are made in understanding its science. Besides increasing temperatures (which is acknowledged universally), there are two crucial indicators of this a change in monsoon rainfall and melting of Himalayan glaciers. Both are critical to availability of freshwater. There is evidence from within the scientific establishment that both these things are happening. The monsoon and glaciers hold the key to what we know about climate change in India.

Next (Gone Berserk)>>

Gone berserk

Read Full Coverage