Ministry of External Affairs Government of India

Climate Change Negotiations

• 

  By: Amb (Retd) Dilip Sinha
  Venue: Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Roorkee
  Date: April 13, 2018
  

It is an honour for me to be invited to India’s premier technical institute. I deeply appreciate the large turnout despite the annual exams being around the corner. I will speak on climate change today, not its technical aspects because you would be familiar with them, but the politics of the global negotiations that have been taking place for nearly three decades now.

Climate change is currently looked upon as one of the most serious threats to the world but the awareness that greenhouse gases (GHGs) are causing global warming is relatively new. In the 1960s it was believed that these gases were keeping solar radiation away and lowering the temperature. It was in the 1970s that empirical evidence started emerging of their warming effect.

Inter-governmental negotiations started with unprecedented alacrity in the United Nations and moved at a frenetic pace. The World Climate Conference called by the World Meteorological Organisation in Geneva in 1979 noted that carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere had increased by 15% during the last century and "it appears plausible that an increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can contribute to a gradual warming of the lower atmosphere, especially at high latitudes.” In 1988 the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on climate change stating that industrialised countries have the "main responsibility” for combating pollution. In 1990 it set up an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Climate Change. This committee held the preparatory negotiations for a summit meeting in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil in 1992.

The UN Convention on Environment and Development, popularly called the Earth Summit, held at Rio was the largest ever gathering of heads of state and government. It set up the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to stabilise GHG emissions at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Industrialised countries, however, successfully resisted the proposition that the "main responsibility” for global warming rested with them. It was eventually agreed that countries had "common but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR) and that the burden of remedial action should be shared by countries with "equity” according to their "respective capacities”. The convention listed 43 industrialised/developed and former communist countries in its Annex 1. They were to take emission cuts, called mitigation targets, in their GHGs and bring them down to 1990 levels. Developing countries were not required take mitigation targets but were expected to improve their emission intensity by increasing efficiency. For this they were to be given financial and technical assistance. They were also to be given assistance for adapting to the adverse effects of climate change.

Meetings of the UNFCCC started in 1995. In two years the parties agreed upon the Kyoto Protocol, the first breakthrough in climate negotiations after the Rio summit. The protocol laid down a cumulative commitment by Annex 1 countries to reduce their emissions by 5% in five years with 1990 as the base year. Each country was given a specific target of emission reduction and an elaborate compliance mechanism of reporting and monitoring was put in place. Belarus, Malta and Turkey were included in Annex 1 but were not given emission cut targets. Countries were allowed to trade assigned emission amounts, called carbon trading, to facilitate meeting their targets.

However, the Kyoto Protocol ran into difficulty soon after its signing. The US signed but did not ratify it because of fear of rejection by its Senate. In 2001 President Clinton was replaced by George W. Bush, a climate-sceptic opposed to any agreement on climate change. This delayed the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force only in 2005 and the first 5-year commitment period started in 2008. The first commitment period lasted till 2012, after which most Annex 1 countries refused to accept mitigation targets for a second phase.

Before proceeding further on the course of the negotiations, let me talk about the factors that enabled them to move forward despite opposition from various governments and sections of industry. The pressure for producing results at these conferences came from small low-lying island and least developed countries which are likely to be the worst victims of climate change. A number of environmental NGOs were also in the forefront of the movement. They would turn up large numbers at conferences and hold parallel meetings and demonstrations. The US was their favourite target, but other industrialised countries and large developing countries like China and India were not spared. Bitter exchanges were also common between governments and NGOs of the same country. This was because of the divergent interests of countries and within them of various interest groups. At the same time, strong media attention made governments keen to project an environment-friendly image. Many European countries, in particular from Scandinavia, took an enlightened stand and pressed for ambitious commitments by industrialised countries. However, their enthusiasm waned after the 2008 global financial crisis.

Climate change negotiations have been the most bitterly contested and divisive negotiations in international affairs in recent times. Even the science is disputed. Several experts question the hypothesis of global warming and its causes. They regard climate change as cyclical, caused by the periodic shifting of the earth’s magnetic poles rather than anthropogenic factors such as greenhouse gas emissions.

The traditional groupings of countries based on historical, regional and developmental considerations got fragmented in climate change negotiations. The familiar East and West or North and South alignments were replaced by unlikely friends and rivals. The highest per capita emissions are in developing countries like Qatar, UAE, Singapore, Bahrain and Kuwait. The lowest are in poor developing countries like Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and India. Among the developed countries, the US has one of the highest per capita emissions. The lowest among them is of some European countries. The fossil fuel industry, coal and oil, which is the main target of climate change action, resents mitigation measures. Oil-exporting countries like Saudi Arabia oppose emission limitations, while the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) stands for strong measures by all Annex 1 countries and also large developing countries like China and India. They also demand assistance for adaptation measures.

The main groups that emerged in climate change negotiations were:

• BASIC: Brazil, South Africa, India, China. Large developing countries that want CBDR to continue to apply to them.
• Arab Group: 22 members. High per-capita emission countries that oppose tough emission restrictions.
• EU: 28 members. Countries broadly supportive of strong measures to mitigate climate change but no longer as enthusiastic due to weak economic performance.
• Umbrella Group: US, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Kazakhstan, Norway, Russia, Ukraine. Industrialised countries opposed to strong mitigation measures.
• Environmental Integrity Group: Mexico, South Korea, Switzerland. Industrialised countries better disposed than others to mitigation measures.
• Small Island Developing Countries: 40 members. Strong advocates of tough mitigation measures and assistance for adaptation.
• Least Developed Countries: 48 members. Same position as the small island countries. Some members are common in the two groups.
• ALBA Group: Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of our America. 11 countries of Latin America and the Caribbean led by Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador. Passionate advocates of strong mitigation measures.

China joined hands with other large developing countries with high aggregate emissions, India, Brazil and South Africa to form what it called the BASIC group, to resist pressure from the US and the environmentalists. The BASIC countries defended themselves on the principle of CBDR enshrined in Rio and strongly resisted any dilution of it. They insisted that they were developing countries like the others and needed financial and technical assistance to adapt to climate change. They, however, came under attack from both the industrialised countries and the small island countries. The US was in the forefront of the charge against CBDR. It opposed their claim to CBDR and criticised them for not specifying a peaking year for their emissions. It maintained that finance and technology are available in the world market and will flow into countries which create the right enabling environment for investment.

India based its claim for special treatment on the size of its population and the large number of people living in poverty: one-fourth of its population without electricity; one-third cooking with solid biomass; per capita oil consumption of 0.6 toe (tonnes of oil equivalent) against the global average of 1.88 toe. It argued that its HDI rating 0.586 and its rank of 135 warranted its status as a developing country since no country has rating of above 0.9 without a toe of 4.0.

The US was itself unwilling to agree to any centrally-imposed emission cuts because such a treaty would have to be ratified by its Senate, where as the famous saying went, it would be ‘dead on arrival’. It insisted that emission mitigation targets should be left to each country to decide for itself and each country should declare its peaking year.

The overall performance of the industrialised countries in the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol was not as bad as feared, though the disaggregated picture was mixed. CO₂ emissions fell 12.5% for all Annex 1 countries during this period. But this was due to the 32.4% decline in emissions of former Soviet republics due to their deindustrialisation, which preceded Kyoto. Without it the reduction would be only 2.7%. 10 industrial countries were able to achieve their targets by buying carbon credits. The global financial crisis of 2008 also contributed through decline in production.

US emissions in 2014 were 7% above 1990 against the target of a 7% cut, envisaged for it in the Kyoto Protocol. Australia had been permitted an increase of 8%, but it managed to keep it at 4%. Canada’s emissions rose 20% over 1990, against a target of 6% reduction, and in an outrageous gesture of defiance it de-ratified the Protocol in 2011. Global emissions, however, rose 51% by 2012 over 1990, mainly due to a sharp increase in China’s emission.

The second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol was to start from 2013 and Annex 1 countries had agreed to a cumulative emission cut of 18% over 1990. However, President Barak Obama, who came to power in 2009, led a forceful campaign for a new treaty, which would meet America’s conditions, so that it could join it. This put the second phase negotiations on the back-burner. It barely got half the 144 ratifications required for it come into effect. Only the smaller industrialised countries - Australia, Cyprus, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea, Romania and Switzerland - took emission reduction commitments. Russia and Japan declared that they would not take any commitments under it, while the other Annex 1 countries chose to ignore it.

The focus of the negotiations shifted to a new agreement at the Copenhagen conference of the UNFCCC in 2009, which was elevated to summit level. President Obama negotiated a deal with BASIC leaders to replace centrally-determined emission targets with a ‘pledge and review’ system - each country setting its own target whose implementation would be reviewed periodically. BASIC agreed to the deal on Obama’s assurance of massive financial aid, reaching USD 100 bn. a year by 2020. The proposed agreement set a target of 25-40% cut in emission between 2005 and 2020, in the place of the more ambitious goal of 80% emission cut by 2050. It also gave up the idea of keeping the global temperature rise below 1.5⁰ Celsius by 2050. However, decisions are taken by consensus at UNFCCC, and the agreement could not be adopted at the plenary as it was opposed by Bolivia, Tuvalu, Venezuela and Sudan. They resented its weak provisions and were peeved at not being included in the select group in which it was informally negotiated by Obama.

Though the Copenhagen agreement was rejected, its provisions were slowly incorporated in agreements reached at subsequent conferences. A Green Climate Fund became operational in 2014 with headquarters in South Korea in accordance with Obama’s promise of financial aid. The pledges, however, remain well below the original promise. They currently stand at US$ 10.3 billion. The US has pledged $3 bn, of which it has paid only $ 1 bn.

China, meanwhile, took advantage of the time earned to rapidly build its infrastructure and install new power plants, mostly based on coal. The result was a spike in its emissions and it soon overtook the US as the world’s largest emitter. However, it did not stop there. It continued to add to its industrial capacity and its emissions rose to twice that of the US. This strategy placed it in a position to declare its peaking year and take emission cuts by switching to more efficient sources of energy.

The US now decided to negotiate bilaterally with China. Five years after Copenhagen, in November 2014, it successfully negotiated a deal in which the two countries jointly announced their post-2020 climate action plans. The US promised to reduce emissions by 26-28% by 2025 over 2005. China announced that its emissions would peak "around 2030” and it would increase its share of non-fossil fuels to 20%. They also decided between them that the global temperature rise target should be kept at 2⁰Celsius. The two largest emitters agreed to work together for a new climate agreement in Paris in 2015.

The US-China deal became the basis of the new agreement at the next UNFCCC at Paris in 2015. It introduced the ‘pledge and review’ system in which each country would declare its ‘intended nationally determined contribution’ (INDC). It declared that global temperature increase will be kept well below 2⁰ Celsius and efforts for 1.5⁰ Celsius would be pursued. The latter formulation was included to assuage NGOs and small island developing countries. The agreement reiterated the promise of climate finance of USD 100 bn. per annum. The Kyoto Protocol’s binding commitments thus made way for voluntary contributions in the Paris Agreement, diluting the climate change regime and creating uncertainty and foreboding about the future.

The Paris agreement was hailed as an outstanding achievement. Countries ratified it rapidly and it came into force the very next year. 175 countries have already ratified it. But its limitations are evident. The accounting period starts in 2020, which means that there is no agreement in force between 2013 and 2019. The INDCs add up to only about a third of the emission cuts required to meet the target of 2⁰ Celsius. All countries have to submit biennial reports on the implementation of their INDCs for international assessment and review. However, to placate developing countries aggrieved at the abandonment of CBDR, the review system is to be "transparent, non-adversarial and non-punitive”.

The INDCs of some countries is summarised below:

India:

· Emission intensity to be reduced by 30-35% by 2030 over 2005.

· 40% non-fossil fuel-based energy capacity to be installed by 2030.

· Additional carbon sink of 2.5-3.0 GT to be created through additional forestation.

USA:

· Economy-wide emission cut of 26-28% by 2025 over 2005.

China:

· Peaking of emissions by 2030.

· Emission intensity to be reduced by 60-65% by 2030 over 2005.

· Increase in non-fossil fuel-based energy capacity of 20%.

· Increase in forest stock by 4.5 billion cubic meters over 2005.

EU:

· 40% reduction by 2030 over 1990.

The Paris agreement, however, once again became a victim of presidential change in the US. President Donald Trump criticised it for imposing "draconian financial and economic burdens” for a "very small” gain in global warming. He declared that the temperature decrease would be only 0.2⁰ C by 2100. He claimed that measures to be taken under the agreement could cost 2.7 million jobs by 2025. This was an estimate by the Washington-based National Economic Research Associates which clarified later that its report did not take into account the potential benefits of emission cuts and new technologies. Trump announced his country’s decision to withdraw from the agreement.

Under the Paris agreement notice of withdrawal can be given 3 years after the entry into force of the agreement and will become effective 1 year later. This safeguard gives a chance for a rethink in the US on the decision. Besides, 16 American states have pledged to stick to their commitments under the Paris Agreement, which gives hope of that though weak it will not be an outright failure.

India will continue to be under pressure in climate change negotiations. Its emissions are bound to increase as it builds its infrastructure and meets its growing energy needs. It has not yet set a peaking year and has tried to deflect the issue by declaring that its per capita emission will never exceed the per capita emission of developed countries. The US decision to leave the Paris Agreement has temporarily eased the pressure on India and given it some breathing space. India has to utilise this opportunity and front-load investment in sectors which are likely to increase emission. But this has to be done judiciously because we face serious domestic environmental concerns. It is imperative for us to take hard decisions and effective action in our environment policy. We should take such action for our own sake and then use our strengthened position in climate change negotiations to press for effective action by others.