The first half of 2016 has been marked by severe droughts across the world due to the intense El Niño coupled with record high temperatures. From parts of southern and eastern Africa, the Philippines, to many areas in India, the effects on crops, livestock and humans have been devastating. There is compelling evidence that anthropogenic climate change has been a significant factor in these weather events.
Since the historic Paris Agreement on climate change (COP-21) signed last December, the first meeting of parties took place in May in Bonn. With 177 signatories at the moment, the Paris Agreement will enter into force, or take effect, 30 days after at least 55 countries accounting for 55 per cent of the global greenhouse gas emissions have ratified the agreement. According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): “17 States have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval.” These account for only 0.04 per cent of the total global greenhouse gas emissions.
The Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (APA) is the body now responsible for developing mechanisms and detailed steps for the implementation of the Paris deal. These would include mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions to meet the goal of staying well below 2°C; mechanisms that support adaptation on the ground; means for support through finance, technology and capacity building; and the development of specifics on the global stocktake agreed upon every five years. Ensuring that countries set up the frameworks for implementing their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), establishing processes for transparency across the board on a range of issues, and for dealing with loss and damage as a result of climate change are other matters to be addressed.
The Bonn meetingIn Bonn, there were early disagreements between rich and developing countries over the provisional agenda of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) regarding an item related to the Paris Agreement. Item 5 in the provisional agenda related to the NDCs. The dispute, according to observers, reflected the overall difference in opinion between developed and developing countries on whether mitigation alone should be a part of the NDCs or whether adaptation and the means of implementation should also be included. This controversial agenda item was later set aside by the chair to be discussed separately and not included in the negotiation. Other points of contention appeared around interpretation of the Paris Agreement regarding differentiated transparency of action in developed and developing countries.
The APA’s efforts were complemented by negotiations on some items in subsidiary bodies of the UNFCCC. For instance, at Bonn, parties began discussion on many points under the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA). There were sessions covering the use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes or ITMOs; these involve cooperative approaches to mitigation by different countries and are widely seen as a new avatar of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of Joint Implementation, more generally. Other issues of significance were on potential governance structures and avoiding double counting.
An important point discussed in Bonn related to specifying the differences between the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol. The Paris Agreement will be quite different from the Kyoto Protocol, since all parties have agreed to the Paris Agreement; the Kyoto Protocol was meant only for wealthier or Annex-1 countries. Significantly, there was no final clarity on what it means to “deliver an overall mitigation in global emissions”, which will likely determine at least one benchmark of a legally binding global target. All of these concerns would require further discussion and have to be resolved before COP-22 in Marrakech, Morocco.
India’s position in the meeting was significant in at least two ways. First, by recognising the pivotal role of the Bonn meeting in shaping emerging rules and activities of a post-Paris world order, it reiterated the importance of Article 3.1 of the Framework Convention (UNFCCC) which uses as a yardstick the common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) of the parties in responding to climate change. In taking the lead, developed countries also had an obligation to meet their pre-2020 commitments in the Kyoto Protocol and to take early action.
Second, Ecuador, India and other Like Minded Developing Countries called for the need for clarity on the role of non-state actors in the Paris Agreement and asked for a report on the topic at the next meeting of the SBI. There could be a conflict of interest in their participation, and the rules and guidelines on non-state actor engagement need to be clear so that their roles are transparent and the integrity of the UNFCCC process is safeguarded.
TransformationA key, though perhaps underappreciated, outcome of the meetings of the SBI and SBSTA was the resolution to have a technical session in November 2016 on economic diversification and transformation; and just transition of the workforce, and the creation of decent work and quality jobs. In many ways, this commitment is a recognition that the world’s economy cannot proceed as if it were on a business-as-usual pathway, and that a few tweaks would address the challenge of climate change. Rather, it requires a broader transformation involving just transitions in forms and types of work and economic production. Taken seriously, the forum could energise an important global discussion on the types of transformational changes needed to reduce emissions and adapt to living in a warmer world.
Given that the Paris Agreement will be a legally binding document when it goes into force and will have serious consequences for each country, there are bound to be legal battles on the interpretation of the core agreement and the portion of the text which is referred to as the “decision”. While some international observers have said that the Paris Agreement is likely to be ratified soon, given the complexity of the document and the global politics of climate change, some countries may choose to wait until these meetings of parties have set the rules in place and provide greater clarity.
Sujatha Byravan is Principal Research Scientist at the Centre for Study of Science, Technology and Policy.
