The Lima Climate Change Conference (COP20), held under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), concluded in the early hours of Sunday morning, when agreement was finally reached on a five-page text officially known as the “Lima Call for Climate Action.” The nations of the world had begun the conference riding a wave of optimism as the recently announced U.S.-China climate deal raised hopes that it would spur the rest of the world to action. However, the positive feelings quickly faded and it became clear that the old political divisions between the developed and developing world largely remained, meaning that many challenges still need to be overcome before the crucial conference (COP21) at Paris next year.
There were several points of contention during negotiations: the Like Minded Developing Countries bloc led by China and India pushed for greater differentiation – the principle enshrined in the UNFCCC agreed in 1992, which dictates that developed and developing countries have different responsibilities based on historic emissions – and strong financial commitments; the Small Island States bloc pushed for “loss and damage” to be included as a stand-alone measure, as they seek compensation for the damaging effects of climate change; and developed countries pushed for a review of prospective emissions cuts pledges to enhance accountability. Following agreement of the text, each group could claim some degree of success, as the final text included passages that touched upon each issue, striking a balance between the various groups. Reaction to the agreement ranged from Christina Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework on Climate Change, citing a fresh wave of positivity, to the WWF claiming the optimism prior to Lima had been misplaced, given a lackluster plan.
The principle of differentiation has always dominated climate change meetings. China’s recent pledge to peak emissions around 2030 as part of the bilateral deal with the U.S. was seen a move away from the rigidity of the developed/developing split. In the negotiating chamber however, little had changed as China backed India’s calls for more references to differentiation in the text and the removal of a passage that suggested some developing countries could also contribute towards mitigation efforts. The principle of differentiated responsibility was included in the text but it is followed by the statement “in light of different national circumstances,” reflecting the political reality of India and China’s increasing carbon emissions (in terms of total cumulative emissions, China ranks third behind the U.S. and EU, while India ranks eighth). This opens up the possibility that the developed/developing barrier will become less pronounced over the course of the next 12 months, although Todd Stern, the U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, acknowledged that it is likely to remain an issue at COP21 next year.
Read full article HERE