• News
  • Paris climate talks may have to pay for Lima compromise
This story is from December 21, 2014

Paris climate talks may have to pay for Lima compromise

Is the outcome at Lima a recipe for a weak climate deal in Paris? Compromises on many key issues in the draft negotiating text that will serve as the basis for the next round of negotiations, beginning in February in Geneva, hint at such a possibility.
Paris climate talks may have to pay for Lima compromise
NEW DELHI: Is the outcome at Lima a recipe for a weak climate deal in Paris? Compromises on many key issues in the draft negotiating text that will serve as the basis for the next round of negotiations, beginning in February in Geneva, hint at such a possibility.
Countries from both sides - developed and developing - accommodated each-other’s concerns in the agreed text, but it still left many loopholes in the draft that may allow rich nations to maneuver their positions in the run up to Paris.

The concerns are articulated by NGOs across the globe who found that the Lima outcome fell short of expectation as it was guided more by “political expediency” than the scientific urgency and need of vulnerable countries.
The views of NGOs’ representatives, who attended the conference last week as observers, seem significant if one goes through the fine-print of the text.
The agreed text - Lima Call for Climate Action - shows that all countries will by October 1 provide the UNFCCC secretariat their INDCs (mitigation targets and adaptation measures) to achieve the goal of keeping the global temperature rise below 2 degree celsius this century. But a careful reading of the agreement belies the promises it sets out to make.
The text prefers to use “may” instead of “shall” while asking countries to provide their INDCs using various parameters and reference points like base year, time frame or periods for implementation. It, at the same time, remains silent on specifics of those references. Obviously, this was glossed over to save the talks from collapsing.


The agreement “urges” developed countries to enhance their ambition in the pre-2020 period. The developing countries, in fact, gave the rich nations enough concession by allowing them to escape without making any commitments. The rich group, on the other hand, agreed to have references of adaptation, financial support, technology transfer and 'loss and damage' mentioned in the text without providing a definite roadmap.
“Developed countries have not pledged to reduce their emissions from now till 2020. They have also not given any concrete assurances to provide finance and technology to the developing countries. Every country can now decide what they want to do to reduce their emissions”, said Chandra Bhushan, deputy director general of the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE).
He said, “The countries will not be asked to explain how their efforts are fair and ambitious. They will also not face any rigorous assessment process ahead of the Paris summit”.
The World Wildlife Federation (WWF) reacted the same way saying, “Political expediency won over scientific urgency...Governments at the UN climate talks in Lima opted for a half-baked plan to cut emissions.”
Samantha Smith of the WWF Global Climate and Energy Initiative said, “Governments crucially failed to agree on specific plans to cut emissions before 2020 that would have laid the ground for ending the fossil fuel era and accelerated the move toward renewable energy and increased energy efficiency”.
Though the developing countries including India expressed their satisfaction over clear mentions of “Under Convention” and “CBDR” in the text, NGOs pointed out how the caveat in the form of “different national circumstances” will spare the rich nations from fulfilling their responsibilities despite being big historical emitters.
Referring to the finance issue in the agreed text, the Climate Action Network South Asia (CANSA) director Sanjay Vashist said, “On finance, the momentum provided by pledges to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) got lost. Ten billion USD in the GCF - over four years - is too little....The Lima outcome did not provide further clarity about the pathway to the USD 100 billion a year promised to support developing countries to take climate action. Finance was essentially kicked down the road to Paris”.
author
About the Author
Vishwa Mohan

Vishwa Mohan is Senior Editor at The Times of India. He writes on environment, climate change, agriculture, water resources and clean energy, tracking policy issues and climate diplomacy. He has been covering Parliament since 2003 to see how politics shaped up domestic policy and India’s position at global platform. Before switching over to explore sustainable development issues, Vishwa had covered internal security and investigative agencies for more than a decade.

End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA