Out comes of the UNFCCC CoP 21 - what does it mean for the poor and vulnerable countries?

Zero poverty, zero emissions:  what does the final agreement offer to the poor and vulnerable countries?  Part 2

Tracy C. Kajumba, 

After days and nights of negotiations, campaigns and lobbying, the COP21conference has finally come to an end with consensus on the final agreement. Both Non government organisations and parties seemed to be happy that there is an agreement, which most commentators thought was better than the first draft which came out with many brackets.

The UN secretary general Ban Ki moon in his remarks noted that, “The Paris Agreement is a monumental triumph for people and our planet. It sets the stage for progress in ending poverty, strengthening peace and ensuring a life of dignity and opportunity for all.” The French President Francois Hollande told the assembled delegates: “You’ve done it, reached an ambitious agreement, a binding agreement, a universal agreement. Never will I be able to express more gratitude to a conference. You can be proud to stand before your children and grandchildren.”

For the first time all the 195 Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – pledged to curb emissions, strengthen resilience and joined to take common climate action. This followed two weeks of tireless negotiations at the United Nations climate change conference (COP21). All countries have agreed to hold global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius. And recognizing the risk of grave consequences, they have further agreed to pursue efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5 degrees. The Paris Agreement and the outcomes of COP21 cover all the crucial areas identified as essential including mitigation – reducing emissions fast enough to achieve the temperature goal; a transparency system and global stock-take – accounting for climate action; adaptation – strengthening ability of countries to deal with climate impacts; loss and damage – strengthening ability to recover from climate impacts; and support – including finance, for nations to build clean, resilient futures.

Despite the above successes, the agreement is just the beginning of a tough journey that requires accountability, solidarity and support to the most vulnerable countries and communities. It is one thing to have an agreement on paper and another, meeting the commitments made by parties. George Monbiot a British writer, environmental and political activist quoted by the guardian noted that; “Until governments undertake to keep fossil fuels in the ground, they will continue to undermine the agreement they have just made”. In support of this, Article 17 of the agreement notes with concern that the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels in 2025 and 2030 resulting from the intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) do not fall within least-cost 2 ˚C scenarios but rather lead to a projected level of 55 gigatonnes in 2030, and also notes that much greater emission reduction efforts will be required than those associated with the INDCs. 

The INDCs will determine country commitments and if the targets are below the expected ratios, then it’s already a problem. Whereas delegates agreed to cut demand, at home each country seeks to maximize supply for stable economic growth. Some of the INDCs for  Least Developed Countries (LDCs) have strong components of adaptation instead of mitigation because their emissions are low. They are focusing on accessing funds from developed countries to implement their INDCs. For all countries, we are depending on voluntary national climate action plans that might not be scrutinized ever or those failing to meet their commitments reprimanded in any way. Article 15.2 of the agreement states that, the UN will establish “a committee that shall be expert-based and facilitative in nature and function in a manner that is transparent, non-adversarial and non-punitive.” This implies that countries may not necessarily fulfill their commitments since there are no penalties if they fail to meet their emission reduction commitments.

There are also diverging views on Article 6, concerning finance. This is one of the most contentious issues of the deal, especially considering that several INDCs submitted by developing countries include actions conditional on the provision of climate finance resources, technology transfer and capacity building. As Reuter’s reports, developing nations asked greater certainty over richer countries’ promise to deliver $100 billion annually by 2020. In my view, the language has also been watered down. Article 6 is filled with voluntary everything! Voluntary cooperation, voluntary basis in cooperative approaches etc. Parties have been given a leeway to decide what they want to do or not to do. This is not good for developing countries who are grappling with climate change impacts which is reversing any development efforts! This makes me think that may be the agreement was easy on every one thus the unanimity of the decision?!

While earlier drafts specified dates, percentages and funds in quantitative terms, the final text aims only “to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible” without stating what it means in actual terms. This could go on and on without achieving real targets. The agreement does not specify who would be responsible for paying 100 billion USD per year to help developing countries in mitigation or adaptation measures nor does it specify how the 100 billion USD per year fund would be managed and audited to ensure that there is accountability and equity in the access and use of the fund.

Whereas the agreement commits to protect the vulnerable, address loss and damage, provide financing, support resilience, reduce global emissions, it does not set clear targets to achieve this. It’s a good starting point but I guess many more conferences will follow to strengthen implementation strategies. Let’s watch the space and see how the different countries full fill their commitments. If implementation of the agreement fails, the poor will sink further into poverty and there will be a reversal in development efforts which will mainly affect developing countries and specifically women and children who are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.