Durban 2011 climate change deal: The world could have achieved same results ten years ago or more

It is nearly the end of two weeks of meeting in Durban; The UN Climate Change Conference. While only two more days of negotiation to go, this piece of writing contains a searing exposé of my expectations and disappointments on recent progress and the future of climate change treaty.

As I predicted with my utmost disappointment even before the negotiation began that a legally binding treaty would be certainly off the table. May be at least for now - but, would that even be possible by 2020? Of course, it is a matter of future negotiations as opposed to the world’s economic situation and for the developed and developing nations to share the responsibilities to keep the global temperature rise under 2°C. But for now, conference outcomes are very clearly indicating red lines on the issues of legally binding global treaty. It comes as no surprise to me. It’s simply because world’s economic situation is presently going pear-shape. Many governments around the world have introduced austerity measures to come out from the recession and no countries want to bind themselves in a legally binding commitment which will potentially hinder the way out from this looming economic crisis.

Indeed, for many, the timing of this climate change discussion has seen as inappropriate when world is facing worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930s. But, when is the right time, place and context to have the right discussion on the right topic? One thing in common with all the Government's representatives; where all of them, mutely thinking not to be similar to Greece which has been on the verge of default on its huge economic debts. I believe economic and ecological debts are both equally important and closely interlinked; therefore need to be tackled simultaneously. Provision for any future ecological austerity by the nations will be bitterly fought against by its own people, therefore possible that it will get nastier than economic austerity that we are experiencing today.

This time in Durban discussions, India has been seen as acting as a 'bully' and 'spoiler', however denied by its negotiators that India's position as 'clear, consistent and compassionate' (Daily News and Analysis, December 02, 2011) on the issue that New Delhi will not accept any new legally binding carbon emission cuts. None of the other two biggest polluters in the world, for example USA and China are willing to commit to any new legally binding deal. Nothing is new; it’s all old same manifestation of denial and blaming each others for their responsibilities.

United Nation Environment Programme’s (UNEP) executive director Achim Steiner told Indo Asia News Service (IANS) that ‘Voluntary measures by countries and legally binding emission cuts are to condition each other and should not be put into competition against each other. Both are important and it cannot be either/or.’ ‘You cannot totally rely on voluntary measures but they are necessary as they show the commitment of the countries at regional level to deal with adverse impact of climate change. Similarly legally binding targets cannot solve all problems’ he said (Eco News, December 06, 2011).

I agree with Achim Steiner’s comment on ‘legally binding targets cannot solve all problems’. My strong view on this is that there has to be a change in culture and attitude - people should perceive nature as sentinel who guards and guides the humanity; not only seen as the provider of natural resources. Therefore, individual responsibilities are far greater than ad hoc legal instruments, which can strongly be strapped with voluntary measures, but in the reality only voluntary measures will barely protect the environment and biodiversity. That means there has to be a combination of all three – legally binding targets, voluntary measures and increased consciousness in green living.

The lengthy climate change conference has NOW ended after a last-minute quid-pro-quo arrangement between European Union (EU), India and China. Proponents, denials and critics are all rushing to the conclusion about its possible effects on tackling global warming and climate change. In the agreement, EU agreed to extend Kyoto Protocol for the second round, which secured a lifeline beyond 2012. All other countries in return agreed to draft a roadmap for new legally binding agreement by 2015 and will make it operational by 2020.

I have to say it is too little too late to keep the global temperature rise under 2°C. My anger dwells inside of me as such prototype deal could have been agreed much earlier. I suspect that in the future UN will have to allow a 3°C or 4°C global temperature rise. An increased global temperature up to 4°C would bring ecological as well as financial catastrophe around the world. I am not forecasting doomsday scenarios, on the contrary, I believe that the mitigation and adaptation costs will be higher and certainly far greater than it is now, society will have to adapt with the changes, while doing so there will be an enormous pressure on the planet and people’s livelihoods. It looks like the world is going to that direction.

I am being cautiously optimistic about the new agreement that may be reached in the future. Arguably, it appears that all are not bad news, other areas, where the deal has been progressed, are the rich countries which have promised to provide global green climate fund worth $100 billion to the developing nations by 2020. Critics are saying global green fund is good in principle but low in substances as it is not yet clear from where the money will come and how it will be spent. However, the US and the EU said that they have mobilised $5.1bn and $6.3bn, respectively, in the past two years (Aljazeera, 02 December 2011). I think it will be difficult to assemble more money at the time of worst economic downturn. But it’s better than nothing; at least the process has begun to help developing nations tackling the impacts of climate change. Fund receiving countries need to be highly cautious and need to show enormous responsibility of being transparent, accountable and free of corruption while utilising the global green fund. I am worried about the dishonesty, negligence, bribery, corruption, victimisation and influence peddling that go on in the developing nations. Will the funds be applied for the right cause and for the right people?

A modest progress was made in Durban on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). Including forests in combating climate change were the strongest areas where the international community had moved to the right direction in 2010 Cancun climate change conference. In Durban, progresses have been made on setting the baseline emissions and how to measure the reduction of emissions by including the forests in combating the climate change. According to Lars Lövölde, the head of the Rainforest Foundation of Norway – ‘The Durban has delivered progress on fundamental issues such as social and environmental safeguards, and strict rules to ensure that the global deforestation is reduced’. But as we know that the progresses were not made on long-term funding for REDD.

In Durban, negotiators also agreed on a technology-expert panel to start their work. This expert panel will be hosted by the institution ‘Climate Technology Centre, which will lead a global network of information sharing on cleaner energy technology among developing nations in climate change mitigation. This is a big step forward in the right direction.

Finally, opinions are divided on the deal that was struck in Durban. But it is very important to acknowledge that the Kyoto Protocol is still alive even though [for time being] no penalties can be enforced against those who overshoot their emission targets with impunity. Exceptional credit goes to European Union that it was committed to continuing Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012 and it helped to facilitate a roadmap that China and other countries were agreed.

In my view, the world could have achieved the same results ten years ago or more.