Zimpapers Logo

Jeffrey Gogo Climate Story
WITHOUT doubt, the much hyped about Paris 2015 climate deal will be weak because Lima has provided strong evidence of the deep level of divisions entrenched in the global climate negotiations. For many years now, rich and poor countries have failed to pull down the firewall of distrust embedded in the talks. Regrettably, the divisions, as once again seen at the annual UN climate talks in the Peruvian capital, Lima, between December 1 and 12, gave no hope temperature rise will stay below 2 degrees Celsius, certainly not in this century.

After two weeks of negotiations that overran by two days, parties agreed to a package of outcomes called the “Lima Call to Climate Action” while a 39-paged draft negotiating text of the elements for the 2015 agreement was also produced.

The outcomes were woefully inadequate and dangerously low on ambition, undoing the seemingly modest momentum to deliver a comprehensive future climate agreement that had been built in the run up to the conference.

In November, China and the US pleasantly surprised all by announcing a bilateral deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Although the substance of the Sino-US deal remains fundamentally weak when measured against the amount of ambition needed to control global warming, it was a better-than-expected deal.

Then we had Ban ki Moon seeking to ramp up political will at an extra-ordinary climate summit in New York in September and the $10 billion in pledges as initial capital for the crucial Green Climate Fund.

But the momentum was indeed fragile, as it gave way to dictatorial talks designed to prioritise Western interests above all else. Battle lines were drawn.

The world’s biggest emitters, both the past and present, industrialised states including members of the European Union and the US, advocated voluntary contributions instead of legally binding commitments, as was the case with the Kyoto Protocol.

This is what is being referred to as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, in the process, abolishing the “developed” and “developing” countries grouping enshrined in the Annexing system under the UN climate convention.

While the general consensus is that each country should provide its INDCs by March 2015, Lima could neither provide satisfying guidance on the scope of INDCs nor definite roles for each country.

The “developed” and “developing” country divide came into play once more. Rich countries pressed for mitigation only contributions and that all countries be obliged to offer a mitigation contribution.

Numerous developing countries disagreed. Those in Africa and the rest of the developing world contended that INDCs “should also include adaptation and financial, technology and capacity building support” from rich nations, who caused the climate problem.

Developed countries refused to provide guarantees for specific and predictable financial support, and instead called on countries “in a position to do so” to offer support. Otherwise, poor and vulnerable countries should make do with donor aid, they said.

Was there any concrete deal reached on the structure, assessment needs or information requirements for reporting INDCs? No.

What does this mean for Africa? It means there is no guarantee that intended nationally determined contributions from the West would be sufficient to keep temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius, the limit considered by scientists as safe.

No one can assess or measure with certainty if the EU’s contributions are fair, for example, and whether there is need to raise ambition, when and by how much.

In the absence of even a compromise on the structure of a review mechanism, the world risks locking in low ambition at a time when rapid climate action is needed.

According to a recent Climate Action Tracker analysis, if current levels of ambition from the US, EU and China are fully implemented; global warming would reduce by just 0.4 degrees Celsius by end of the 21st century.

But that will not stop world temperatures rising by up to 3 degrees Celsius, “resulting in large-scale, unprecedented and unacceptable climate impacts on people, earth systems and humankind.”

The issue of treating adaptation and mitigation as equal cornerstones for the 2015 agreement proved contentious, again on rich and poor lines.

Lima resolved that parties consider including an adaptation component in their INDCs, but were under no obligation to do so.

Industrialised states had earlier rejected parity between the two crucial aspects of mitigation and adaptation.

This is bad news for Africa, a continent most vulnerable to climate impacts, which has been advocating parity between mitigation and adaptation in the new deal.

Loss and damage

One of the biggest let downs from Lima for Africa was on the issue of loss and damage.

Since Warsaw, the continent has requested to specifically “reference loss and damage from climate impacts that cannot be addressed by adaptation as a stand-alone item.”

Developed countries would have none of that, not necessarily because they do not agree with the fundamental agreement behind this call, but because they fear financial obligation.

They maintained their historic positions treating loss and damage in the sphere of adaptation.

“Industrialised countries are afraid that any opening of the loss and damage issue might ultimately lead to being legally required to pay compensation to developing countries for their past GHG emissions and have hence tried to keep the profile of this issue as low as possible,” said a recent report from the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy.

Eventually, the matter was completely left out of the Lima Call to Climate Action or the “elements” paper, a certain future contentious issue for Paris agreement.

There are several aspects to talk about from the climate negotiations recently concluded in Peru.

But what is clear is that since Durban in 2011, when nations agreed to come up with another legal instrument to replace Kyoto, prospects for a new deal have not shaped in a manner that favours Africa.

Lima provided little optimism that what has failed to materialise in three years of talking since Durban will be achieved in just one year, the year of the Paris deal.

The question now is, who should pay for the devastating climate damage seen across Africa, if the rich are neglecting historical responsibility.

God is faithful.

 [email protected]