Consensus @ Copenhagen

It is a measure of current state of Global climate negotiations that the only point on which all nations are likely to agree is that the prospects of an agreement on confronting the rapid change in the climate are far from bright. The Earth Summit- an international treaty better know as United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) is scheduled to be held at the Bella Center in Copenhagen in December 2009. The outcome of this yet to be held Summit comprising of 192 member countries and 4 observer countries has already been speculated from the upcoming statements by individual member countries but it is an undeniable fact that untill a framework keeping in mind the need of the hour and the state of affairs of the member countries is prepared, a consensus at Copenhagen is not to be expected.

The 'Berlin Mandate' which was an expression to the concerns voiced by the participating countries of the 1st conference of the UNFCC, in 1995, exempted non-Annex 1 countries from any additional legally binding obligations, keeping with the principle of ' common but differentiated responsibilities ' even though, collectively, the larger, newly industrialized countries were expected to be the largest emitter 15 years hence. Between 1995 through 1997, the UNFCC held two conferences, of which the notable feature was the the member countries comprehended to the findings professed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and called for ' legally binding mid term targets ' while rejecting the the option of uniform 'harmonized policies ' in favor of flexibility.

It was in December 1997, at Kyoto (Japan) , after intensive discussions on the conclusions of extensive research and study of the IPCC that the Kyoto protocol was adopted at the 3rd Conference of Parties (COP 3), to which 37 industrialized countries commit themselves to the reduction of 4 greenhouse gases (carbon-di-oxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride) and 2 groups of gases produced by them (hydro fluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons) produced by them, and all member countries to give general commitments. These gases are in addition to the industrial gases, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which are dealt under the 1987Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the Ozone layer.The annex 1 countries agreed to reduce their collective GHG by 5.2% of their 1992 levels under the Kyoto Protocol which was ratified by 187 countries. The notable non-member of the Protocol is the United States, which is responsible for 36.1% of the 1990 emission levels. The United States has been criticized unanimously for its reluctance in fulfillment of its moral obligation to act and confront its GHG emission being the largest polluter in the world.

Over the years, especially from 1997 through 2001, the UNFCC 's COP was held so that the pending issues which were unresolved in Kyoto could be finalized in the meeting which, however, initially, was unsuccessful due to the complexity and difficulty of finding an agreement with the consensus of the member nations. It was only in the year 2001, at 6th conference of parties (COP6), incidentally the only COP that was held at 2 different venues over a gap of nearly eight months and thus also known as COP6 Bis in which the latter half of the conference, held at Bonn in Germany, an agreement was reached on major political issues, to the surprise of most observers given the low level of expectations that preceded the meeting. The agreement was signified with the consensus of member countries on Flexible Mechanisms including Clean Development Mechanisms, Carbon sinks (initially proposed by United States but resulted into a controversy), Emission Trading with no quantitative limit on the amount of credit a country could claim from the use of this mechanisms.

This structured framework has now become increasingly difficult to abide with and most Annex 1 nations now fear the sanctions they may face due to the contravention of the commitments in terms of emission reductions that may be levied on them. The now major developing economies, especially India and China have been put under insurmountable pressure of ratifying a legal obligation in the extension of the Kyoto Protocol after it expires in 2012 under the Montreal Action Plan (MAP) adopted at COP 11 in 2005. In regards to the MAP, the 2007 session of the UNFCC at island Bali in Indonesia, the 'Bali Road Map' was adopted as a decision of COP13, under which a 2 year time frame for the processing a a post Kyoto Protocol framework which, unfortunately, has not been decided as till date and the Copenhagen meet which will be the 15th Conference of Parties is the deadline for coming up with the framework envisaged under the Bali Road Map.

But thanks to recent announcements by the US and China, there may be a deal at this month's Copenhagen climate summit, as said by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chief RK Pachauri in a recent public address. This would put more pressure on India, which needed to quantify the steps it was taking to reduce global warming, he added. But, the question here is that, should India have relied on the actions of other countries or instead, gone ahead with its own policy in context with its state of affairs and growth perspectives with a forehand discussion in the parliament, Scientists working in the field of climate change and NGO's working for the environmental protection. India has, however, framed its own National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) which was released by the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on 30th June 2008, which in my opinion should be tabled by India at Copenhagen. It outlines a national strategy that aims to enable the country adapt to climate change and enhances the ecological sustainability of India’s development path. It stresses that maintaining a high growth rate is essential for increasing living standards of the vast majority of people of India and reducing their vulnerability of the impacts of climate change.

But with the US President Barack Obama's announcement that his country would cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 17 per cent by 2020, compared to 2005, and China's announcement that it would reduce the GHG-intensity of its economy by 40-45 per cent by 2020, compared to 2005, would put more pressure on India to come up with similar quantitative commitments. The big question is, what is Plan A and what is Plan B for India. If a united stand of emerging economies is India’s Plan A, then it is going to once again fall into a familiar trap; trusting China or any other country in such a crucial negotiation, where self-interest is paramount, would be naïve, to say the least. If its voluntary actions are Plan B, then it begs the question as to why India had to wait to make its proclamation well after the US—which till a month ago held the dubious distinction of being the worst polluter and also a non-signatory to the previous deal on climate change—and China made their claims.

As a quid pro quo to developed nations taking the lead, the large developing countries need to come on board with declared voluntary actions. Many of them are already undertaking some mitigation action as well as announcing significant voluntary targets. It is unexceptionable that the large developing economies need to do their share by shifting to a sustainable, low-carbon path of development. But until such time as the developed countries stabilise their climate mitigation trajectories in line with the IPCC recommendations, the emerging economies cannot accept monitoring, reporting, and verification of their voluntary actions, or other means to convert them into legally binding commitments.

Regrettably, in the run-up to Copenhagen, the strategy of the Government of India has been beset by confusion. Most recently, the official statement by the Minister for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, that India would be ready to submit the outcomes of its domestic mitigation actions to “international consultations” has given rise to fresh concerns that India is going too far in accommodating the developed nations. The government has not seen it fit to conduct adequate consultations with Parliament, political parties, and civil society on India’s climate strategy ahead of the summit. In this situation, we can only await with concern the outcome of Copenhagen and the manner in which India’s interests are articulated there by the government.

In the words of Martin Luther "For in the true nature of things, if we rightly consider, every green tree is far more glorious than if it were made of gold and silver" . If the leaders and bureaucrats of the world realize the true sense of these words, a resolution  with global consensus at Copenhagen is quite possible.