The Eighteenth Convention of Parties (COP18) among 194 member states of United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) concluded recently in Doha on December 8. Like previous conventions, this was a desperate bid to rescue the globe from climate catastrophe through appropriate action, a failure to do so rightly feared to push the entire earth into ecological collapse. It may, however, be noted that seriousness has been largely lacking all along the UNFCCC process since its inception in 1992, and Doha was no exception. The main purpose of this article is to elucidate how the UNFCCC and its COP events, including Doha, were just rituals with very little to offer in terms of solutions.
In the beginning, the parties were in fact relatively prompt to agree on the Kyoto Protocol (KP1) in 1997 within three years of starting their annual meetings. The Protocol made mandatory arrangements to reduce Green House Gas (GHG) emission to 5.2 percent from 1990 level. However, the provisions were characterized by a number of limitations. First of all, the emission reduction targets were too meager to address the issue at hand. Second, the targets did not necessarily ask for direct reduction of the gases at their source, but entertained ‘flexible mechanisms’ that created space for loopholes. Third, the first commitment period would start only in 2008, leaving the problem unattended for long. Fourth, and probably the most serious, the US—then highest emitter of the GHG—refused to come on board, raising a question mark over the rationality of the entire protocol.
The parties had deferred important decisions until as late as 2007, when they agreed on Bali Action Plan (BAP). BAP in its composite form aimed for a more ambitious emission reduction, and necessary support to the developing world by various means including technology and finance. Bringing the so far absconding USA on board was the other idea behind BAP. A host of meetings and workshops were held to do the necessary homework. The ultimate aim was to get a necessary legally binding agreement by COP 15 (2009) in Copenhagen. But alas! Copenhagen ended with frustration, particularly for the underdeveloped world, as no agreement was reached, and the parties simply produced an ‘accord’ maneuvered heavily by the industrial world. The accord was replete with nice words, but with little commitment to change the equation.
PHOTO: FARM3.STATIC.FLICKER.COM
Amidst fading hope, the parties once again tried to revive international negotiation in the following year in Cancun (COP16), which was eventually endorsed at COP17 in Durban. This consisted of adopting an altogether new mechanism to deal with the issue through what has been called ‘Durban Platform’ or ‘ADP’. The idea has been to revamp GHG ambition through different approaches, including yet another attempt to bring the USA on board. Besides, it was mandated to figure out means and mechanisms of supporting developing countries. The aim is to strike a legally binding deal by 2015 and implement it by 2020.
Two decades of post UNFCCC process witnessed a number of taxing meetings, but had little to offer. A recent study by World Bank suggests that the world is on the path to 4 degree Celsius rise in temperature by the turn of this century. This can be viewed in the backdrop of a mere 0.76 degree rise in global temperature during the last century, which resulted in a fatal blow to the global system. Quickly melting snow cover, rapidly advancing desertification, deadly hurricanes, and biodiversity loss are pushing the earth to a tipping point. The most recent research on Antarctica indicates that the entire area will be ice free in merely 10 years. This massive melting may have chain reactions in the entire earth system of the like of typhoons Sandy in the USA and Bopha in the Philippines, which left thousands dead or homeless.
The magnitude of the problem may be imagined by the fact that US President Barrack Obama asked the congress to allocate USD 60 billion to rehabilitate the victims. Drought, floods, drying up of water sources, and loss of biodiversity have taken huge tolls in the underdeveloped world, which are yet to be fully accounted for. But the parties are still not working to reduce emission, and instead are simply stalling the negotiation process under controversial bandwagons such as ‘creation of Green Climate Fund’, ‘fair share in atmospheric space’ and most recently, ‘compensation to loss and damage’. It is thus evident that ADP is just putting old wine in a new bottle. The tug of war between the industrialized world, newly emerged economies, and the rest of the world is here to stay.
There are reasons to wonder if the UNFCCC negotiation process can address the problem at all. For example, Robert Donkers (Minister Counselor of EU for our region), in response to a query from the floor, could offer no solution other than to wish that we had “other feasible alternative mechanism to deal with climate crisis!” This might remind one of the scary picture put forward by Garrett Hardin, who theorized that maintaining common property was unfeasible, given that every member is tempted to maximize its use, thus pushing the entire system to inevitable ‘tragedy’. But Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom demonstrated that some common property like forests and irrigation schemes might not necessarily be a problem as long as certain ‘design principles’ can be put in place.
The question is whether such ‘design principles’ from forestry, irrigation and fisheries can be modified and applied to address the current climate crisis. The complexity was well captured by Ostrom’s statement in an interview with National Public Radio (2009) “This is much tougher, much, much, much, much, much tougher than the inshore fisheries and community action things. But I don’t think we want to say it’s impossible”. If Ostrom had survived, she would probably have figured out a solution to this perplexing issue. Now the onus is on contemporary common property theorists.
Given that the solution is yet far from sight, Nepal’s focus should be on championing climate change adaptation with whatever meager resources at our disposal. Our role in international negotiation should take second place.
The author is former Joint Secretary, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation
baraljc@yahoo.com
Related story
Tree house and fishing in Yalambar
