Kalpana Palkhiwala
Climate Change is a long-term phenomenon and has been duly recognised by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. The international community including India is actively engaged in finding ways and means of preventive climate change. The Copenhagen Accord and the CoP decisions concerning the Adhoc Working Group (AWG) for Long Term Cooperative Action (LCA) and AWG for Kyoto Protocol (KP) reflect some of the key Indian concerns in the climate change negotiations. These include - continuation of two-track negotiations under the Bali Road Map, avoidance of explicit or implicit numerical target for emission reduction in developing countries through a long term goal of emission reduction, differentiation in the nature of mitigation commitments/actions of developing and developed countries, funding for developing country actions including those for rewarding REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) plus, need for technology development and cooperation and adaptation.
India participated in the meeting called by CoP President to draft the Copenhagen Accord in the expectation that it would be adopted by consensus as a CoP decision, ensuring universal participation. Eventually, this did not materialize and CoP only “took note” of the document. Against this background, we need to take steps in order to advance the political understanding reflected in the Accord.
Firstly, it is now clear that the Copenhagen Accord does not have a legal character of its own. It does not stand independently as a plurilateral agreement between countries that associate themselves with it. The challenge, therefore, is to draw upon the areas of consensus reached by the countries attending the meeting for drafting the Accord and use them in the multilateral process in order to reach an inclusive agreement in the two AWG tracks at CoP16.
Secondly at Copenhagen, the parties did not agree to redefine the Convention (UNFCCC). They agreed that mitigation actions of the developing parties will be voluntary in nature and will not result to form a legally binding agreement.
India participated in the meeting called by CoP President to draft the Copenhagen Accord in the expectation that it would be adopted by consensus as a CoP decision, ensuring universal participation. Eventually, this did not materialize and CoP only “took note” of the document. Against this background, we need to take steps in order to advance the political understanding reflected in the Accord.
Firstly, it is now clear that the Copenhagen Accord does not have a legal character of its own. It does not stand independently as a plurilateral agreement between countries that associate themselves with it. The challenge, therefore, is to draw upon the areas of consensus reached by the countries attending the meeting for drafting the Accord and use them in the multilateral process in order to reach an inclusive agreement in the two AWG tracks at CoP16.
Secondly at Copenhagen, the parties did not agree to redefine the Convention (UNFCCC). They agreed that mitigation actions of the developing parties will be voluntary in nature and will not result to form a legally binding agreement.
At the Copenhagen Conference, the CoP/CMP has decided in unequivocal terms that the negotiations will be continued in the “two-track” approach, corresponding to the Convention and in the Adhoc Working Groups and the Kyoto Protocol respectively. It also reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring that there is no gap between the first and second commitment periods of the Kyoto Protocol.
Thirdly, we recognize the fact there exist scientific projections that require us to take early actions to address climate change through mitigation and adaptation. Some parties insist that the door of preventive action is closing fast and that we should initiate early global action to be able to reach the long term goal of adequate emissions reduction by 2050 with the help of all parties. It is important to understand, in this context, that outlining the global goal alone is not enough. The manner of reaching this goal also has to be simultaneously defined. This is possible only through adoption of an equitable approach to allocation of carbon space by all countries. This is an issue that is not perhaps debated fully and comprehensively so far and must be pursued meaningfully and constructively in the negotiations during the run up to Mexico.
The issues relating to “competitiveness” raised by industrialized nations while undertaking emissions reduction commitments are inconsistent with the principles and objectives of the convention (UNFCCC) and the long term goal of economic and social development of non Annex -I countries contend there in. These questions are not relevant to the larger environmental questions that we are grappling with. The developing countries have to be enabled to implement mitigation actions while recognizing in their overriding priorities of economic and social development and poverty eradication. These questions need to be settled in advance before CoP16 meeting to be held in December 2010.
Success in Mexico will depend on how the voluntary movement of developing countries along low-carbon sustainable development path is supported on the assurance that their development needs are fully protected under an equitable and internationally agreed regime of carbon allocations/entitlements.
Fourthly, the provisions of Accord can be implemented only with consensus of parties and with the help of CoP decisions. Substantial questions of
Especially, needed, therefore, is to find ways of realizing the financial pledges made by the participants to the Accord. The question is how soon these financial commitments can be operationalized and how the predictability and sustainability of financial flows can be ensured?
Finally, the talks must be conducted in a totally transparent and inclusive manner. The CoP-15 experience raises some questions related to the negotiation process. Some developed countries have voiced the opinion that negotiations in a restricted forum are more fruitful than in a universal forum, such as those under the UNFCCC. However, this is not an ideal way of conducting the talks. Developing countries have strongly contested this proposal. The main role of UNFCCC and its multilateral processes vis-a-vis other limited fora(e.g. MEF, G-20) has to be properly re-affirmed if the talks at Mexico have to succeed. Transparency has to be maintained throughout the negotiation process.
.jpg)
Posts
0 Comments