http://www.fm.co.za/Article.aspx?id=161245

 

Responses to the deal reached by 195 countries at the climate change talks in Durban last week range from praising the compromise as a "historic agreement" to accusing it of giving in to polluters at the expense of the planet.

 

Responses to the deal reached by 195 countries at the climate change talks in Durban last week range from praising the compromise as a "historic agreement" to accusing it of giving in to polluters at the expense of the planet .

The deal has all countries agreeing to work towards a legally binding emissions reduction scheme by 2015, to be implemented by 2020. It was forged in the last hours of the Conference of the Parties (COP), and rides on the back of last-minute fears of a complete breakdown of the talks.

A compromise agreement also saved the Kyoto Protocol - the only legally binding arrangement applying to developed countries - with Europe and a few others signalling a commitment to a second round of pledges after 2012.

Progress was also made on the "Cancún decisions": the green climate fund was set up along with initial pledges; a committee was set up to help vulnerable countries adapt to climate change; and the terms of reference were set for a technology centre and network, which will help transfer technology to developing countries.

On the face of it these decisions are a major feat, given the stalemate between countries in the last days of the Durban conference.

KPMG climate change & sustainability director Neil Morris says though the details of the text need to be analysed for businesses to understand the short-term consequences, the long-term message is certainty that the green growth path is the one to follow .

Business also now has certainty that the market mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol will still apply, such as the clean development mechanism which allows emission reduction projects in developing countries to be funded by the earning and selling of carbon credits.

National Business Initiative CEO Joanne Yawitch says the implementation of the Cancún decisions will be important in the future, not least the hope that the green climate fund will become an important means of financing mitigation and adaptation measures in SA.

But the success or failure of Durban depends on the measure of success used to judge it. Before the negotiations, SA lead negotiator Alf Wills told the FM that given where the negotiations were , success should be "whether we're building a system that enhances climate action, that further solidifies actions, and that solidifies finance and technology for developing-country action".

This is in a sense what Durban achieved. But behind the big-picture certainty that the global institutions are still intact lies what can be seen as a weak deal on the substance of these institutions.

So though there is much to be lauded, SA environment minister Edna Molewa's view that "the final outcome is historic and precedent-setting, ranking with the 1997 conference where the Kyoto Protocol was adopted" is questionable.

Given the difficulty of the negotiations, the text (which had to be redrafted many times in the final hours), invariably had to be watered down until common ground could be found.

WWF climate strategy & advocacy head and head of the delegation, Tasneem Essop, points out that though the progress of getting countries to agree on this deserves credit, these are process-related decisions which lack the substance needed to tackle climate change effectively.

Firstly, that the agreement will be implemented only after 2020 warrants concern. Only then will all countries be equally legally bound to emission reduction targets.

The deal was Europe's condition for committing to a second round of pledges under the Kyoto Protocol to "bridge" this timeframe. But Russia, Japan and Canada will not be part of the second round of Kyoto commitments, and neither will the US, which was never part of the protocol.

This means that, until 2020, these large developed- country emitters will not be legally bound to any of their mitigation targets . The COP process recognises "common but differentiated responsibilities" between developed and developing economies where developed countries are legally bound to absolute emission reductions (until now through the Kyoto Protocol), whereas developing countries undertake voluntary actions.

But until the new global deal comes into play, this handful of large emitters is being treated the same as developing economies. They still need to adhere to their absolute emission reduction targets (and developing countries don't) but these targets are now essentially voluntary, and not subject to any sort of compliance mechanism.

"[They] are essentially let off the hook for almost a decade," says Essop. "There was not enough attention paid to that."

Nor was it decided whether the second commitment period and the start of the new legally binding deal would be 2020 or 2018.

The second factor worth another look is the "ambition" level of the pledges. Current pledges made at Copenhagen are leading the world to a 3°C-4°C warming. Countries have agreed that the 2015 new legal framework will include an increase in the "ambition" level of the pledges to a 2°C warming.

In making these pledges, the COP will refer to the International Panel on Climate Change's fourth assessment report, due to be published between 2013 and 2015. It is to present the latest scientific findings on the difference between what is being done and what needs to be done in addressing climate change.

But the wording of the text is weak, says Essop. The deal agreed to in Durban says only that the COP must "consider" the report in making these new pledges.

It is worth questioning whether countries will be ready to increase their "ambition" in 2015 when they were not willing to do so in 2011. "For the next decade only the existing pledges are on the table," says Essop.

Lastly, just how the pledges will be legally binding is unclear. The agreement will either be a protocol, another legal instrument, or an agreement that can be legally enforced. The difference between these is the strength of the legal mechanisms, which means the debate is still open on how exactly these pledges will be legally binding.

Even so, the strongest option - a protocol - already has its weaknesses. Take the Kyoto Protocol, for instance. This week, Canada (well on its way to missing its emission reduction target) has pulled out of the protocol before the end of the first commitment period.

It is no longer subject to the protocol and therefore the rules of the protocol don't apply. Wills says the only consequences of this will be political scorn.

Other outstanding issues include where the money for the green climate fund will come from. Initial pledges (which will be finalised in the next week or so) include those from Germany, the UK, Denmark and Sweden. But the long- term finance is still to be determined . The fund requires US$100bn by 2020 and a working group has been set up to source these funds. Though these are positive steps, it means it will take a good couple of years before the money starts flowing.

Considering all the above, if the success of COP17 is defined as countries agreeing to take the necessary and urgent action needed to avert the worst consequences of climate change, then it was clearly a failure. Not enough has been done to stop global warming from reaching 3°C-4°C. Research suggests the worst of the consequences will be felt by small island states and Africa.

On the other hand, given the rigid positions of the countries involved, not least the US, China and India, finding consensus of any kind was a major achievement. As Molewa points out, finding a middle ground between 195 countries required "a delicate balance between a wide range of extremely complex, highly political and sometimes conflicting sets of social, economic and environmental development issues ".

Accepting that country positions were far from what they should be to effectively tackle climate change, a political process of getting one step closer to a global agreement was perhaps all that could be expected from Durban.

But for future generations, and those already suffering from the effects of climate change, the deal reached in Durban failed to secure action to stop the worst consequences of climate change. And that, in the end, is the purpose of the COP.