COP21: Where It Succeeded And Where it Didn't

“It won’t save the planet…it saves the chance of saving the planet” – Bill McKibben

Prior to the recently concluded Conference of Parties (COP) 21 in Paris, the two COPs which were considered as landmarks in the climate change negotiations, for entirely different reasons, were the ones held in Kyoto (COP 3) and Copenhagen (COP 15). The Kyoto Protocol, as it came to be known, acknowledged historical responsibility of the developed world to combat climate change. It institutionalized the concept of Common But Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR) by drawing up a list of developed countries (Annex 1) which committed themselves to targets for cutting or slowing their emissions of greenhouse gases that adversely impact the climate.

At Copenhagen, on the other hand, the developing world was left disappointed as the global target of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050 was dropped, along with any mention of the 1.5 degree Celsius target. Moreover, President Obama’s statement that developing countries should be “getting out of the habit” of looking at previous agreements which made a distinction between developed and developing countries soured the mood to say the least, and was seen as a tactic by the developed world to wriggle its way out of its responsibility to address climate change.

In this context, the objective at Paris was two-fold – first, to take what was agreed at Kyoto to the next level wherein the international community would commit even more towards climate action; and second, to undo the diplomatic failure that occurred at Copenhagen. While from a diplomacy point of view the Paris agreement can be termed a “Grand Success”, from a climate change perspective it left much to be desired. The following four criteria further illustrate the “Grand Success” and the “Grand Failure” that was COP21.

• “..pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change”

Grand Success – The pressure from environmental activists and other civil society groups paid off as the Paris agreement went beyond the 2 degree target agreed at Kyoto by stressing the need to ensure temperatures do not rise above 1.5 degree Celsius – which as earlier mentioned was removed from the final draft at Copenhagen at the last minute.

Grand Failure – As noted by eighteen civil society groups prior to COP21 in a study titled “Fair Shares: A Civil Society Equity Review of INDCs”, the national declarations of the developed world have failed to impress, while the commitments of certain developing countries such as India have exceed their ‘fair share’ of emission cuts. In a world where collectively INDCs do not even ensure temperatures do not rise above 2 degree Celsius, the 1.5 degree Celsius is patronising and smacks of symbolism.

• Parties to the Paris Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries

Grand Success – At Copenhagen, as this paper by Sharan and Goel for ORF says, ‘a target for climate financing was agreed upon. Developed countries promised to mobilise long-term finance to the tune of US$ 100 billion by 2020, and provide US$ 30 billion between 2010 and 2012 by way of ‘fast-start’ finance’. At Paris, by making USD 100 billion the minimum (floor) amount that needs to be mobilized, there has been an acknowledgment by the international community that USD 100 billion is inadequate and far larger sums of money are required to successfully tackle the dangers of climate change.

Grand Failure – The agreement however fails to distinguish between development finance and climate finance, and the need for “additional” or “new” sources of climate finance – a demand made explicit in India’s INDCs. The failure to do so leaves the door open for accountants to get creative and allows the developed world to skirt past their financial responsibilities. Also the 100 billion number only appears in the preamble and is not legally binding.

• Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets.

Grand Success – After Copenhagen, it was important to reiterate the need for Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), and the Paris agreement made clear the onus of climate action rests with developed world. As stated by the India’s Environment Minister, “the agreement has deep links with the Convention (UNFCCC) and CBDR is imbibed in it. More importantly, differentiation of developed and developing countries is mentioned across all the elements of the agreement, in mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, capacity building and transparency. That is very important,”

Grand Failure – While the words ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries have been used often, the agreement makes no mention of ‘Annex 1’ and ‘non-Annex 1’ countries, nor does it include the term ‘historical responsibilities’, leaving enough room for scepticism in the developing world.  Moreover, the last minute “typographic error” and the United States’ insistence on incorporating the word “should” instead of “shall” in the above statement (Article 4.4) did not help smooth over the doubts prevailing in the developing world.

• “Each Party shall communicate a nationally determined contribution every five years”

Grand Success – Before the final plenary session began at the summit, the French Minister, Laurent Fabius, announced that the final draft put forth before the world would be “legally binding”, and it was encouraging to see it being successfully passed within this legal framework. By ensuring each country comes back to the table after five years and the progress it has made with regards to its INDCs is scrutinized, bodes well for future action on climate change.

Grand Failure – The climate pledges made by member nations are not legally binding – if a country fails to successfully implement policies mentioned in its respective INDCs, it will not be penalized. The agreement also allows enough flexibility to individual countries in reporting emission cuts and progress on climate action, making the legal structure somewhat hollow.

The expectation from Paris was that the COP21 summit would be Kyoto Protocol 2.0. While that has not been the case and the take-off button in climate action is yet to be pressed, the 197 signatories have certainly pressed the restart button. The easy bit is done and the momentum on climate action has shifted towards the positive. The hard part is left – individual countries need to seize this opportunity and work towards a greener future.