The Paris Agreement on climate talks

Akham Bonbirdhwaja Singh *

One of the most accommodative and compromising statement which all present were ready to sign was the Paris Agreement on Climate Talks (PACT), which the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius described as "historic turning point" in climate Talks. From a point of view, it could be described as a product of the statesmanship of the developing countries which did not allow the talks to go off the track. The Paris Climate Agreement was opened for signature by the parties to the convention on the Earth Day, the 22nd April, 2016.

There were 175 signatories out of 193 signatories to the framework convention (initially, over 130 countries confirmed their attendance in the signing ceremony). The host France was represented by its President, Francois Hollande and India was represented by the Forest & Environment Minister, Mr. Prakash Javadekar. The signing ceremony was hosted by the Secretary General of United Nations at New York.

The signatories are to be authorised by their respective government to sign the agreement to indicate the countries full commitment. The signing shall be opened for one year, till 21 April, 2017, during which hectic cajoling, diplomatic exercises etc. shall carry on so that all the member countries are on board. The countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Nigeria and Kazakhstan have not the signed the pact yet.

Under Climate negotiations, for any convention or protocol or agreement to enter in to force, the same is to be signed by at least 55 members of the framework convention and should account to 55% of global greenhouse gas emission. The instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession should be deposited with the depositary.

Following each national completion of this process, instruments are submitted to the Depositary under the UN Secretary-General in New York. It is only once such an instrument is deposited that a country can be said to have ratified the Paris Agreement. Then after thirty days of doing so by the last country, the agreement becomes legally binding to all parties.

It has been long since we started working for the environment under the aegis of UN in the UNCHE (UN Conference on Human Environment) in 1972 at Stockholm. The role that India and Sweden played in the conference were appreciated the world over. It also has been quite long since the Earth Summit or Rio Summit we had on UNCED (UN Conference on Environment and Development) in 1992 (Stockholm+20).

The zeal with which we had the Agenda 21 being adopted in the Rio Summit and made three conventions on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Biodiversity (UNCBD) and Desertification (UNCCD) gave a hope to the people of the planet that after all the planet is going to be safe. The UNFCCC was even nicknamed as the mother of all conventions due to its importance, intensity and follow up actions till Kyoto Protocol was adopted.

The Kyoto Protocol was scientifically correct and highly implementable charter; had the member countries were serious on its implementation. The first commitment period was over in 2012 and Second one will be over by 2017 to be replaced by the current one in Paris.

The agreement was a product of hectic negotiation by representatives of 193 countries for almost a forthnight, from November 30 to December 12, 2015 which the host country France described the agreement as "ambitious and balanced" plan in the goal of reducing global warming. The agreement was adopted by consensus on 12th December, 2015.

The aim of the agreement as described in Article 2 is as follows:

"(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;

(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production; (c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development."

The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions pledged during the 2015 Climate Change Conference (21st COP) serve; unless provided otherwise; as the initial Nationally determined target. The level of NDCs set by each country will set that country’s target contribution. The Agreement in para 27 says "…Agrees that the information to be provided by Parties communicating their nationally determined contributions, in order to facilitate clarity, transparency and understanding, may include, as appropriate, inter alia, quantifiable information on the reference point (including, as appropriate, a base year), time frames and/or periods for implementation……., and how it contributes towards achieving the objective of the convention as set out in its Article 2".

So, the countries are given enough freedom to choose their target, which once chosen, should stick to, to respect the convention. Hence, this provision seems to be replacing the Common but differentiated responsibilities with respective capabilities and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Measures (NAMA) undr Kyoto. There are opinions that ‘contributions’ themselves are not binding as a matter of international law, as they lack the specificity, normative character, or obligatory language necessary to create binding norms.

Furthermore, there will be no mechanism to force a country to set a target in their NDC by a specific date and no enforcement if a set target in an NDC is not met. It is alleged that for the developing countries, the commitment is non-committal in respect of their role due to reasons of poverty and resource and for rich countries, their commitment for financial support has been equally non-committal.

Professor James Hansen, a former NASA scientist and a climate change expert, voiced anger about the fact that most of the agreement consists of "promises" or aims and not firm commitments.

The Kyoto Protocol which was agreed in 1997 (Rio+5) was extremely delayed in adopting by the convention as it reached criticality only in 2007 when Russia ratified it. So, the first commitment period was from 2008 to 2012, without achieving much towards the goal of the convention. The protocol was to be replaced by another mechanism in 2012, and Kyoto II was expected from there, but nothing could be achieved in Doha.

The negotiations were always on rough waters in Doha as the Eurozone Crisis was a dark cloud over the world economy. The political standoff between USA and China also had a lot to do in climate negotiations. So, in Doha, to extricate the negotiations from trouble, it was agreed to keep the climate negotiations and Kyoto on live support system and negotiate another instrument by 2015.

In fact, the second commitment period of Kyoto also should have been for a period up to 2017 and so, the Paris Agreement should come in to force from 2018. A few of the member countries have already submitted the NDCs, many are yet to submit. The member countries have been allowed to submit till November, 2016, the date proposed for COP 22 vide para 13 of the agreement. Under Kyoto, there were country specific goals of reduction and timetable for achieving the same (the first commitment period), but in the new Agreement, such country specific goals or timetable has been negotiated the national commitments are to be taken in to account.

In the implementation of Kyoto, there were undercurrent to the negotiations with countries openly issuing statement outside the ambit of the Protocol, the EU talked of setting their own goals, the USA, Canada and Australia were speaking against the Protocol and Russia, Japan and Canada talked of withdrawing from the Protocol. As the NDCs are the individual countries’ choice, such problems are not foreseen in the PACT.

In the PACT, there has been no mention of CDM (Clean Development Mechanism), which was a popular mechanism in Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto took a lot of time to turn in to a binding instrument; the commitment period was too short. So, matter like CDM did not have enough time to show results, reasonable result could be seen in 15 years. If, there is no further projects under CDM, this would be a big loss for forest deficit countries like India, where per capita no of trees stand at 28 against world average of 422 and projects under CDM could have been of great help.

Al Gore stated that "no agreement is perfect, and this one must be strengthened over time, but groups across every sector of society will now begin to reduce dangerous carbon pollution through the framework of this agreement". With the bottoms up approach seen in the agreement, the member countries will certainly be morally committed.

The positivity now is that The USA and China have jointly agreed to sign the agreement, the two countries being world’s largest polluters, contributing 40 per cent of GHG, the chances of the Paris Agreement turning to a legal instrument is very high. Mr Ban Ki Moon said, "We are in a race against time," but the heart-warming optimism was from Robert Mugabe saying "….We have the power to win".

It is happy moment, yes, Paris Agreement is not that bad at all, as some sceptics put. It was a good beginning for this agreement, 175 countries signing an international agreement in one day is a record by itself and this shows the commitment of the world community. After all, all is not lost for the seven billion people of the world. We have something good to look forward to save the Good Earth, the only planet the humans have. Let us all wish and pray that the Paris Agreement is ratified by the mandatory number of countries. Of course hopes are really high this time.