Triumphs and trials

The Eleventh Conference of Parties at Montreal in 2005 came to be dubbed as ‘highly productive’ but raging climate events laid bare the necessity for ambitious future commitments involving major nations with more effective reduction targets

The COP11 was the first conference after the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and also served as the first Meeting of the Parties (MOP) to the Kyoto Protocol. This came to be called the COP/ MOP1. The distinction also served as a division of labor between the participants at the conference: the COP/ MOP1 was exclusively for the operationalization of the Kyoto Protocol and the COP11 dealt with other issues such as capacity building, financing, transfer of technology, the action plan under UNFCCC after 2012 and so on. The subsidiary bodies, namely, the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) also had their meetings, which were mostly to assist the COP11 and COP/MOP1. The first meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group (AWG1) of Annex I parties to discuss further commitments was also held.

DISCUSSIONS

The COP11 discussions, as mentioned above, were mainly around nonKyoto issues. The challenge here was to begin discussions on the possible commitments of developed and developing countries and how to deal with new parties to the UNFCCC. The other issues discussed at the COP11 were carbon sequestration in ‘sinks’ or forests and oceans, which was led by Japan. The Africa Group, led by Kenya, emphasized the issue of capacity building of developing countries, and the G77 plus China grouping raised the issue of transfer of technology and increased funding to developing countries for adaptation measures. This group also wanted the Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT) to be more active and urged more funding for its activities. IT also invited proposals suggesting ways to improve the activities of the EGTT.

Interestingly, the US and Australia, who had not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, also participated in the COP11 discussions on future planning (though not in the COP/MOP1, since they were nonratifiers of the Kyoto Protocol). The discussions, which centered around new ways to curb emissions, were not supported by the US, and the US delegation walked out of the discussions. But after criticism at home in the media and a speech by former President Bill Clinton exhorting the US to join the fight against climate change, the US delegation made a U-turn, made some changes to the text of COP11 and signed on to the revised version.

The discussions in the COP/MOP1, on the other hand, centered around ways to implement the Kyoto Protocol. Interestingly, the Marrakesh Accords, agreed at the COP7 in 2001, were formally adopted in Montreal. It may be recalled that the Marrakesh Accords consisted of two broad decisions:

a) Details of how to measure and reduce emissions and various flexibility mechanisms such as emissions trading, joint implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM); and b) a framework to ensure compliance, which included a facilitative and an enforcement branch. This included the setting up of a 20-member Compliance Committee, which would include a Plenary Bureau and a Facilitative Branch and an Enforcement Branch. Furthermore, parties to the Kyoto Protocol decided to extend it beyond 2012, when the first commitment period was supposed to end.

A lot of discussion took place on Article 3.9 of the Kyoto Protocol, which had to do with commitments for subsequent periods. The text of Article 3.9 is reproduced below:

3.9. Commitments for subsequent periods for Parties included in Annex I shall be established in amendments to Annex B to this Protocol, which shall be adopted in accordance with the provisions of Article 21, paragraph 7. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall initiate the consideration of such commitments at least seven years before the end of the first commitment period referred to in paragraph 1 above.

It may be recalled that the first commitment period, i.e. the period during which emissions reductions would occur, was agreed as 2008-2012. According to Article 3.9, such future commitments would have to be considered ‘seven years before the end of the first commitment period’, which meant by the year 2005. Clearly, no one anticipated that the Protocol would take so long to come into force. As a result, the year of ratification of the Protocol turned out to be the same year when commitments of future periods would be discussed. This was also considered necessary since the first commitment period of 2008-2012, when emissions reduction would begin, was slated to involve the private sector in carbon trading and even investments in developing countries under the CDM. This required some certainty about the future commitment periods and would also ensure long term interest of the private sector in investments related to emissions trading and CDM.

Ultimately, the Montreal Action Plan included a two-track path of negotiations. As discussed above, one track was to do with the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and future commitments as required under Article 3.9 of the Protocol. The second track was a long-term dialogue on general climate change goals as required under the UNFCCC, which would involve non-signatories to the Kyoto Protocol such as the USA and Australia as well as developing countries.

While COP11 and the COP/MOP1 conference were successful in setting the ball rolling, much remained to be done. Because of continuing pumping of greenhouse gases by developed countries and imminent increases by developing countries such as Brazil, India and China, emissions reduction would have to be far more ambitious in the future. As the future events would unfold, and the climate around the globe would go haywire, the urgency would become evident. Scientists estimated that as much as 60-80 per cent emissions reduction would be needed by 2050 to be able to meet the Kyoto Protocol targets.

Under the Clean Development Mechanism, developed countries can invest in sustainable development projects in developing countries, helping the developing nations to improve the quality of life for their citizens while also allowing developed countries to earn emission allowances”

—Richard Kinley, former acting head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat

CONCLUSION

During COP1, scientists estimated that as much as 6080 per cent emissions reduction would be needed by 2050

Richard Kinley, the then acting head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat proclaimed thus: “one of the most productive UN Climate Change Conferences ever”; “there is now certainty for a sustained and effective global carbon market”; “under the [clean development mechanism], developed countries can invest in sustainable development projects in developing countries, helping the developing nations to improve the quality of life for their citizens while also allowing developed countries to earn emission allowances”. However, it was also true that the world had seen massive hurricanes in 2005 in North America and worsening heat conditions in the tropical countries. Future commitments under the Kyoto Protocol or other agreements would have to be far more ambitious and also involve the USA and Australia with mandatory reduction targets and the large developing countries, with voluntary reduction targets.