“To a patient scientist, the unfolding greenhouse mystery is far more exciting than the plot of the best mystery novel. But it is slow reading, with new clues sometimes not appearing for several years. Impatience increases when one realizes that it is not the fate of some fictional character, but of our planet and species, which hangs in the balance as the great carbon mystery unfolds at a seemingly glacial pace.”

The outcry of ‘Climate Change’

A significant collective effort by the scientific community towards global warming and climate change was the formation of the Inter- Governmental Panel in 1989, open to all the members of UN and WMO, to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences. As the science has always been professing that the anthropogenic intervention leading to climate change will assume more disastrous dimensions in following decades if kept unchecked, the world, or more correctly, the a group of countries joined hands to do something about the advancing threat. UNFCCC was thus formed. An international environment treaty that was produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, June 1992 witnessed a participation of 192 countries to set general goals and rules for confronting climate change. The convention had the goal and rules for preventing “dangerous anthropogenic” interference with the system. Inter alia there were some key proposals that were put forth by UNFCCC and agreed upon by the member nations:

• Nations have common but differentiated responsibilities to prevent climate change,
• Nations may not use scientific uncertainty as an excuse for not taking action,
•  Nations should reduce their GHG emissions based upon “equity.”

The UFCCC meet envisaged that there will be a requirement for additional proposals to update the framework for climate change and these were called “protocols” which would take place after stipulated time agreed upon by the parties. The COP adopts decisions and resolutions, published in reports of the COP.  Successive decisions taken by the COP make up a detailed set of rules for practical and effective implementation of the Convention. The COP serves as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP), which also adopts decisions and resolutions on the implementation of its provision.  Hence the COP meetings have taken place in many places across the globe including the one in Kyoto, COP 3 (commonly called the “Kyoto protocol”) while the latest was held in 2009 in Copenhagen referred to as COP15.

History: The Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Roadmap

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 3) in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997. The Protocol shares the objective and institutions of the Convention. The major distinction between the two, however, is that while the Convention encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize GHG emissions, the Protocol commits them to do so. The detailed rules for its implementation were adopted at COP 7 in Marrakesh in 2001, and are called the “Marrakesh Accords.” The Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” The Kyoto Protocol entered into force on 16 February 2005.

The role of Kyoto Protocol has been significant as it not only made the efforts towards climate change more concrete but also introduced many important aspects:

The Kyoto Mechanisms:

The carbon market spawned by these mechanisms is a key tool in reducing emissions worldwide. It was worth 30 billion USD in 2006 and is set to increase. The three Kyoto mechanisms are:  Emissions Trading – known as “the carbon market” – the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI).  JI and CDM are the two project-based mechanisms which feed the carbon market. JI enables industrialized countries to carry out joint implementation projects with other developed countries (usually countries with economies in transition), while the CDM involves investment in sustainable development projects that reduce emissions in developing countries.

Adaptation:

The Kyoto Protocol, like the UNFCCC, was also designed to assist countries in adapting to the inevitable effects of climate change and facilitates the development of techniques that can help increase resilience to climate change impacts. The Adaptation Fund was established to finance concrete adaptation projects and programmes in developing countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.  The Fund was to be financed with a share of proceeds from CDM project activities and receive funds from other sources. 

The Bali Roadmap

At climate negotiations at COP-13 in Bali, Indonesia in 2007, parties to the UNFCCC agreed to replace the Kyoto Protocol with an agreement that would create a second commitment period under the UNFCCC and would include binding emissions reductions for developed countries and new programs on adaptation for developing countries, deforestation, finance, technology transfer, and capacity building. This agreement is referred to as the Bali Roadmap which also called for articulating a “shared vision for long-term cooperative action,” including a long-term global goal for emission reductions. The Bali decision also recognized that developing countries could make contributions to solving the climate change through the development of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) that is climate change strategies for developing countries.

The NAMAs, however, would not constitute binding emissions reduction requirements for developing countries in contrast to the binding obligations of developed countries in the Kyoto Protocol that would be further developed in Copenhagen. At Bali, the parties also agreed on a two-year negotiating process to achieve the objectives of the Bali Roadmap. Under this action plan, nations would proceed on two negotiation tracks: one under the UNFCCC and the other under the Kyoto Protocol. The first track was know by the acronym “AWG-KP,” standing for the Ad hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol. The second track was referred to as “AWG-LCA,” standing for the Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action. The Bali agreement also included a deadline for concluding these negotiations in Copenhagen in December of 2009.

Hitherto: The Copenhagen Accord

In the wee hours of the meet, President Obama along with heads of BASIC countries- Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India; Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva and South American President Jacob Zuma drafted the Copenhagen Accord. To understand the positions of the countries it is important to understand what the 5 page long accord laid down its objectives:

1. To achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention to stabilize greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, we shall, recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius, on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development, enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate change.

2. Enhanced action and international cooperation on adaptation is urgently required to ensure the implementation of the Convention by enabling and supporting the implementation of adaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in developing countries, especially in those that are particularly vulnerable, especially least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. We agree that developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries.

3. Annex I Parties (the industrialized countries) commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economy wide emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted in the format given in Appendix I by Annex I Parties to the secretariat by 31 January 2010 for compilation in an INF document. Annex I Parties that are Party to the Kyoto Protocol will thereby further strengthen the emissions reductions initiated by the Kyoto Protocol. Delivery of reductions and financing by developed countries will be measured, reported and verified in accordance with existing and any further guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties, and will ensure that accounting of such targets and finance is rigorous, robust and transparent.

4. Mitigation actions taken by Non-Annex I will be subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification the result of which will be reported through their national communications every two years. Non-Annex I Parties will communicate information on the implementation of their actions through National communications, with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected.

5. To pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets, to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote mitigation actions. Developing countries, especially those with low emitting economies should be provided incentives to continue to develop on a low emission pathway.

6. The collective commitment by developed countries to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 - 2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation. Funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.

7. Copenhagen Green Climate Fund shall be established as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support projects, programmes, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation including REDD-plus (reduction from deforestation and forest degradation) , adaptation, capacity building, technology development and transfer.

The Copenhagen Accord had blank tables in the end. This was to ensure the entry by the countries recording their emission reduction commitments and actions by 2010. The major issue that was sought to be resolved in the Copenhagen summit was to commit the developed countries to reduce the GHG emissions to levels necessary to protect the most vulnerable countries from climate change impacts that could be avoided and to compensate for the damages that could not be avoided. 

Aftermath

The Copenhagen Meet culminated into the “Copenhagen Accord” and not something “legally binding”. The Accord varies opinions from researchers, journalists, scientists, NGOs and nations themselves. The Accord was termed as “good but not adequate” by RK Pachauri. Kim Carstensen of World Wide Fund for Nature called it “a half-baked unclear substance”. Robert Bailey of Oxfam International said, “It was too late to save the summit, but it’s not too late to save the planet and the people.” Though lately the world media has focused on the failure of summit, it has enjoyed unprecedented participation of international communities, where even the poorest nations could raise their voices and the small island states made their presence felt in the prestigious forum.

Ranging from ideological shifts on sustainable development strategies to practical solutions, a variety of insights has been coming to the global ‘green’ table regularly. Who will serve as the international policeman if a particular nation fails to deliver on its obligation? What part of the cost reducing emissions in the poorer nations will be shared by the richer ones? What steps will be taken to ensure that the upcoming green technologies will make it to the market, despite the stiff resistance because of their exorbitant prices as compared to the fossil fuels? It is some of the vexed questions that will dog the post Copenhagen discourse as the nations of the world stumble on the Mexico meet later in 2010.

“…the time has come when reliance on global agreements and national policies should not be the guiding force behind the actions to be taken, but rather the adoption of an approach whereby we create a new edifice brick-by-brick through grass-roots initiatives”- R. K. Pachauri, Chaiperson, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

The Indian Position

The Copenhagen may have come as a disappointment to the world. However, amidst the disappointment, it proved be more than just an Accord to India. This is partly because of the effect India’s presence has on world and partly because of the effect climate has on India. This Part analyses the Indian perspective during and after the Accord.

India in the Green Centre Stage
The Copenhagen Accord was basically struck between the BASIC countries and later signed by EU and others. This is the obvious indication to fast growing economies of the developing countries which is seen as a considerable threat to the developed. It is clear that before the Accord, the climate talks envisaged to divide the world into 3 types of nations:

• the developed countries whose rapid industrialization had led the lethal amounts of GHGs in atmosphere;
• the developing countries which had major issues like addressing their poverty to put their resources to use to rather than cutting them down to prevent global warming;  
• the least developed countries (LDC), which though contributed the least to the cause of global warming but faced the most of the effect of the same.

Another set of countries were the OPEC (Oil and Petroleum Exporting Countries) which were to be particularly in disadvantage as the Climate Talks envisaged the reduction of GHGs by switching over to cleaner technology and resources. However, during the Accord the dynamics changed slightly. There was the US. There were the BASIC countries.  There were the LDCs. And then there were others. US-BASIC designed the Accord, the others accorded. The LDCs virtually got a death sentence as the Accord did nothing concrete to pledge to alleviate their situation in the wake of the situation that these were the countries who had started to bear the brunt of the Climate Change while the rest of the world still did not emerge up from the petty blame-game and burden shifting. Hence, the apparent outcries by leaders of countries like Tuvalu, Bolivia, Venezuela and Sudan. The Indian position has also changed. It is not just any player but a constituent of a powerful group will influence the policies, and Copenhagen just proved that.

India’s peculiar position in the World

While India is one of the emerging economies and the third largest emitter, it is also a country where hope and deprivation co-exist. Poverty is still a malaise and unemployment still unaddressed. Moreover, and importantly, India is an agrarian economy largely dependent on vagaries of climate. Hence, it is but true that climate change will have as adverse an effect on the economy as a whole which we think it would have on LDCs.

More Indians depend directly on the environment for their survival and livelihood than the populations of the US, France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain and Canada combined. It's an incredible number to imagine. Some 700 million Indian farmers have struggled through the year 2009; their farms first ravaged by drought, then by floods.

The Copenhagen Accord will likely lead to a 3°C or even 3.5°C increase based on current pledges from the developed countries, putting many developing countries at a very high risk, despite its 2°C long-term temperature limit as a goal of the UNFCCC. India could be one of those developing countries. Despite this India has shown willingness to participate in mitigation (long-term cooperation in terms of enhanced action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and not just adaptation (increasing the capacity to meet the consequences of climate change that has already taken place and is likely to continue to take place ) in this global mission to cut emissions. The National Action Plan crafted by the Indian Government has focused on harnessing cleaner sources of energy.

India Pivotal to International Diplomacy

A potential threat is seen by US from China. Why President Obama did not draft a binding agreement was may have been due to his apprehension that the US Senate may not pass such a resolution when China, the largest emitter now, is not required to make such pledges as it is a developing country. Copenhagen indeed gave a large room to international diplomacy. The developed countries seemed rather avid to get China to reduce its emissions. A gamut of financial tracks had been made by them in the view that China would agree to ink the deal at least out of self-interest. However, China after having secured a No. 1 position among developing countries asserted its leadership. In this background the position of India came as a surprise to the western countries. They had been thinking that India would concede to reduction rather than facing isolation. However, the Indian voice was assertive in saying that the world could not expect it to cut emissions until commensurate response came from developed countries.

India didn't like or trust the proposed deal and wanted to show the West that a compliant India could not be taken for granted. Just as important, it wanted to show that, should a perceived fair deal with the West not be possible, it had other options, namely a closer relationship with China. Another important point that highlighted India’s position was that the verification regime which the US had proposed to put in the Accord. India had strictly refused to succumb to the western verification of reduction from earlier experience of the Indo-US nuclear deal. India had been down this road before with the U.S.-India nuclear deal, where Washington's insistence on external verification was seen by some Indian strategists as undermining India's sovereignty and security and a potential excuse to impose costly sanctions. In the case of the restrictions placed on India via the U.S.-India nuclear deal, India viewed the conditions so detrimental to its security that it made a subsequent deal with Russia that ensured uranium fuel supply even if it tested a nuclear device.

Two very important messages were delivered in Copenhagen. India said to the West that it could no longer be taken for granted – it had options. The other message was from China to India. China told India it would be open to a new relationship with India based on mutual interest.

“…India bailed out China from isolation during the Copenhagen climate talks and saved it from getting ambushed by the US and EU which wanted it to sign an agreement on verification of emission levels much against its wishes…,” said Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh.

Asserting Uniformity of Scientific Data
Another issue that India raised was that of the unanimously agreed scientific data that forms the basis of formulating any framework for climate change. It is of great concern that the scientific data which forms the basis of reckoning the respective liabilities should be a sound one and undisputed. Though IPCC is in place to do so, recent news of IPCC of prediction about the Himalayas was a startler. The wrongful prediction was even admitted by R.K. Pachauri.  Hence Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said “…..A modest accord that is fully implemented may be better than an ambitious on that falls seriously short of its targets. This is the lesson learnt with the Kyoto Protocol.

Second, the UNFCCC has to be the centre piece of global cooperation on climate issues… Third, a successful international agreement will require a consensus in two crucial areas: the first is on the science of climate change. The second is the ethical framework for giving expression to the central UNFCCC principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities…”

India plays fair

It may be appreciated that the accord has managed to get the big developing counties to sign up for the plan and come up with their own commitment standards which hitherto was not obligated upon them as according to Kyoto protocol developing countries were not obligated to reduce their emissions. A question has always been posed with a question that how can an accord be reached when major emitters like India refuse to accept responsibility. It is important to note that though India is the third largest emitter, the difference between the third and second emitter is huge. Till 2008, US was the largest emitter, closely followed by China with 16% emissions from the total. India was third with 4%. By fall 2008, China emerged as the largest polluter, a fact that the US asserted rather vehemently, to get China to ink the deal, without regard to the fact that per capita emission of US is four times more than that of China. 

Another premise of India’s stand on climate change as it exists is that the developed countries of the world have had a crucial historical role in the proliferation of the GHG in the atmosphere. Mr. Shyam Saran who was the Indian Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Climate Change already stated that even if the current emissions were, by some miracle, reduced to zero tomorrow, climate change will continue to take place. The accumulated stock of GHGs in the atmosphere is mainly the result of the carbon-based industrial activity in the developed countries over the past two centuries and more. It is for this reason that the UNFCCC stipulates cuts in the emissions of the industrialized countries as fulfillment of their historic responsibility. This is the same reason that the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol had not mandated the developing countries to pledged similarly hitherto, then why India.

“Non-binding” Accord

The Copenhagen Accord is not “legally binding” which by some is seen as the major fall-back of the meeting. David Doniger, Policy Director of NRDC Climate Centre explained: “at the highest level, many campaigners see “legally binding” as an acid test of seriousness.  Any agreement that is “legally binding” is serious; a political agreement is not.  That’s too simple.  Agreements can be effective even though non-binding, if the parties are motivated by self- and mutual interest to observe them.  And legal agreements can be ineffective; if parties are not inclined to comply, there are few formal international legal tools to compel them.”

The Copenhagen Accord as non- binding as it was envisaged that on 31st January, 2010, the countries would come up with their reductions and commitments, did not witness a healthy participation. India refused to divulge its plan as it was virtually a non-binding agreement and no step would initiate from India until the developed countries, especially US commit. At present there is no legislation in place in US Senate regarding the reduction in emissions. Neither does China. Hence, India has refused to succumb to the pressure when the major players are not avid. If Doniger’s argument is taken, where the “legally binding” regime would have facilitated the agreement is in its market mechanism and technology transfer aspect especially those of dealing with IPR issues and competitive bidding of technologies.

Conclusion

The COP “took note” of the Copenhagen Accord rather than adopting it. It is a sorry situation to see the planet perish in the petty blame-game among the nations. The gaps between what is needed to protect poor countries and the ability of developed countries to make commitments have grown. The nations of the world have seemed to lose the ethical aspect totally. It is rather sorry situation to see that none of the key players seem to follow that ethical policy that “no nation or person has a right to continue destructive behavior on the basis that others who are contributing to the harm have not ceased their destructive behavior”. Japan is a shining example. Climate change is a global phenomenon. It is inevitable that changes in one end of planet will be seen on the other end; sooner or later; latent or patent. Hence, in our opinion, placing of diplomacy over real issue and procrastinate a solemn action will definitely take a heavy toll.