ToxicsWatch, Journal of Earth, Science, Economy and Justice

The Thirteenth Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change  (UNFCCC COP-30) will convene in November 2025 in Belém, Brazil. It will serve as the 20th meeting of the COP serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 20), and the Seventh meeting of the COP serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA 7). UNFCCC was voluntary. Kyoto Protocol was mandatory. Paris Agreement is voluntary. The distressing outcome of Twenty Ninth Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change  (UNFCCC COP-29) was more disappointing than the outcome of the COP 28 held in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, during 30 November-13 December 2023.  These outcomes reveal that the adoption of Paris Agreement instead of adopting third commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol was/is a misleading initiative. CMP 20 of Kyoto Protocol should be used to re-negotiate its third commitment period. COP29 decision text has come under unprecedented criticism. 

India became the first Global South nation to reject the UN climate deal, which offers $300 billion annually to developing countries to address the consequences of climate crisis they did not cause. India rejected the climate spending goal adopted at the COP29 in the Azerbaijani capital of Baku. Chandni Raina, an advisor at India’s Finance Ministry and COP29 negotiator for India, severely criticised the deal saying, "In continuation of several such incidents of not following inclusivity, not respecting country positions...We had informed the presidency, we had informed the secretariat that we wanted to make a statement prior to any decision. However, this is for everyone to see, this has been stage-managed. We are extremely disappointed." She said that India was not allowed to speak before the adoption of the deal. She added: "USD 300 billion does not address the needs and priorities of developing countries. It is incompatible with the principle of CBDR (Common but Differentiated Responsibilities) and equity, regardless of the battle with the impact of climate change". She underlined her sadness: "We are very unhappy, disappointed with the process, and object to the adoption of this agenda". She asserted: “I regret to say that this document is nothing more than an optical illusion. This, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face. Therefore, we oppose the adoption of this document.” 

Prior to this India had expressed disappointment at the shifting of focus from enablement of adequate Climate Finance to emphasis only on mitigation, at the Plenary Session at the CoP29 of the UN Climate Change Summit in Baku, Azerbaijan. India aligned its stance with the statement made by Bolivia on behalf of Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs) and reiterated that the process of the fight against Climate Change has to be guided by the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement, as the Global South continues to face the intense impacts of Climate Change.

Delivering India’s statement, Secretary (MoEFCC) and Deputy Leader of the Delegation, Leena Nandan had said, “We feel disappointed by the fact that we continue to shift focus when the time has come to ensure that the mitigation actions are fully supported through provisions of adequate Finances as per CBDR-RC and equity considerations. COP after COP, we keep talking about mitigation ambitions - what is to be done, without talking about how it is to be done - in other words, the enablement of mitigation ambitions. This COP started with Focus on enablement through New Collective Quantitative Goals (NCQG), but as we move towards the end, we see shifting of the focus to mitigation.”

India firmly asserted that any attempts to deflect the focus again from Finance to repeated emphasis on mitigation cannot be accepted. The statement read, “All countries have submitted their NDCs and will be submitting the next round of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) being informed by the various decisions we have taken together in the past as well as on the basis of our national circumstances and in the context of sustainable development goals and poverty eradication. What we decide here on climate finance will certainly influence what we submit next year. The attempt by some parties to further talk about mitigation is primarily a shift in focus from their own responsibilities of providing finance.” The statement called for a ‘Balance in the Climate Discourse’, and added, “If not so ensured, we may have continuous talk of mitigation that has no meaning, unless supported by enablement that is needed to make climate actions happen on the ground.”

India put forth its stance on the following issues that are critical in the fight against Climate Change. They are:

NCQG

India highlighted that as grant-based concessional Climate Finance is the most critical enabler to formulate and implement the new NDCs, action will get severely impacted in the absence of adequate means of implementation. The statement read, “The document needs to be specific on the structure, quantum, quality, timeframe, access, transparency, and review. The goal for mobilisation needs to be USD 1.3 trillion, with USD 600 billion of this coming through grants and grants equivalent resources. Expansion of the contributor base, reflection of conditional elements such as macroeconomic and fiscal measures, suggestion for carbon pricing, focus on private sector actors for scaling up resource flows as investments – is contrary to the mandate for the goal. NCQG is not an investment goal. We must accept that climate actions by Developing countries will have to be country driven, in line with their circumstances and in the manner best suited to country priorities.”

Mitigation

India strongly protested against changing the scope of the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP) in the draft text. India further cautioned against shifting of temperature goals, which  need to be as per the exact language in the Paris Agreement. India called the introduction to the targets for 2030, 2035 and 2050 in the preamble as purely prescriptive.

India urged to add to the text certain elements like noting the pre-2020 mitigation gap by Annex-I Parties; noting with strong concern that the emission of Annex-I Parties is increasing from 2020 to 2030 etc. India strongly urged to recall the negative impacts of coercive unilateral measures on climate action specifically mitigation ambition and implementation.

Just Transition

India strongly declined to accept any renegotiation of the shared understanding prevalent on ‘Just Transitions’ in the decision from Dubai. The statement read, “Just transition is interpreted in narrow domestic terms, implying that it is national governments that have to take actions to ensure domestic just transitions. However, we have repeatedly made the point that Just transitions begin globally with Developed countries taking the lead in mitigation and ensuring that they provide the means of implementation to all Developing countries.”

India statement further said, “We have also repeatedly made the point that the possibility of our domestic transitions, our right to development, and our over-riding priority to pursue sustainable development, is constrained by repeated and ongoing inaction of Developed countries. The current text completely disregards this point that we have been making about our understanding of just transitions, which is also reflected in the Dubai decision. We absolutely cannot accept these paragraphs. They are prescriptive and completely reinterpret just transitions.”

GST

On the GST India stated the following:

1. India does not agree to a follow up of the GST outcomes. As per Paris agreement, GST is supposed to only inform parties to undertake climate action.
2. The new chapeau on Enhancing Action, Support and International Cooperation has been drafted without adequate connection or integration with the text, parts of which are under negotiation on the UAE dialogue.
3. The last text from the negotiations undertaken by Parties was one that captured the views of all Parties and was a viable basis for further negotiation. The new options under the Section titled Modalities of the UAE dialogue does not capture this at all.
4. The new chapeau has no connection with the subject matter of finance which is the main aim of the UAE dialogue.

• Further, the phrase “with developed countries (as per the synthesis report of the Biennial Reports) on track to increasing their emissions by 0.5 per cent from 2020 to 2030” may be added after the phrase “by 2.6 per cent by 2030 compared with the 2019 level”.
• Though the new chapeau title is general, the text added is completely mitigation centric and completely unbalanced. India does not accept this text.
• India does not accept the way the options have been formulated in the Timing and Format sections of the UAE dialogue.

Adaptation

India shared the following five points, which are essential to consider the draft decision:

• Final outcome should include indicators on means of implementation in order for this work on global goal on adaptation to be meaningful.
• There is no need to further focus on transformational adaptation. Instead, it is important to focus on other approaches such as incremental adaptation, long term adaptation in the context of national circumstances.
• The data used for reporting on indicators should be taken from Party submitted reports and not from any third party databases. Therefore, this text may be dropped.

• Language on Establishment of Baku Road Map as a means of continuing work pertaining to the global goal on adaptation, is essential.
• Indicators should reflect the progress in the GGA goals. Further segregation may not be required.

In conclusion, reiterated that this COP is the Finance COP - the Balancing COP, the enabling CoP. The statement read, “If we fail here, we fail in the fight against Climate Change for which the onus should be on those who are obligated to provide finance for climate action.”

The Nigerian representative called the $300 billion goal “a joke,” while Bolivia slammed it as an “insult and a flagrant violation of justice and climate equity.” Ali Mohamed, speaking on behalf of more than 50 African nations, called the deal “too little, too late for a continent facing climate devastation while contributing least to emissions.” He noted that an estimated $5.1–6.8 trillion is needed for climate action by 2030. The Association of Small Island States (AOSIS), a group of 43 island nations quit the summit saying that the COP29 discussions “were not offering a progressive way forward.”

Raina concluded: "India does not accept the goal proposal in its present form."

Some 24 members of the Like Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) and 55 countries of the African Group (AG) comprising 54℅+17℅=71 ℅ of world population have been excluded from unjust 26th Conference of Parties (COP26) of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This situation creates a compelling logic for adoption of the third commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol for post 2020 period because the 37 countries failed to comply with it with impunity. 

The COP 26 negotiators suffers from poverty of imagination under the influence of corporations which have made nation states subservient to their naked lust for profit at any cost. These 37 countries played a notorious role in killing the Kyoto Protocol and replacing it with a non-binding treaty. 

Let us recall how at COP 21 in Paris, on 12 December 2015, the Parties to the UNFCCC reached a voluntary agreement (Paris Agreement) to combat climate crisis. The Paris Agreement was framed pursuant to Washington Declaration that envisaged extinction of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) principle. Developing countries were made to agree to undermining of CBDR principle using donor' influence over them. 

The key polluters paid lip service instead of actions and investments needed for a sustainable low carbon future. The trend of insincerity continues to envelope COP26. The key polluters would like people to forget that they failed to meet the targets for the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (2008-2012) that required them to reduce emissions of the six main greenhouse gases, namely, Carbon dioxide (CO2); Methane (CH4); Nitrous oxide (N2O); Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); Perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). 

Under the Protocol, limit was imposed on the maximum amount of emissions (measured as the equivalent in carbon dioxide) that a Party may emit over a commitment period in order to comply with its emissions target, country’s assigned amount. The individual targets for 36 countries included in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol for the first commitment period and their emissions targets included EU, US, Canada, Japan, Croatia, New Zealand, Russian Federation, Ukraine, Australia. US did not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. In December 2011, Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol effective from December 2012.

The Protocol had extended the 1992 UNFCCC that commits state parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the scientific consensus that (part one) global warming is occurring and (part two) that human-made CO2 emissions are driving it. The Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. It had entered into force in February 2005. 

As a consequence of the insincerity of the key polluters, the 36 countries global emissions increased by 32% from 1990 to 2010.

Their insincerity became more pronounced during the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (2013-2020). The 37 countries that had binding targets included Australia, the European Union (and its then 28 member states, now 27), Belarus, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine did not put into legal force the targets under the second commitment period. Japan, New Zealand, and Russia  did not take targets in the second commitment period. Canada had withdrawn from the Protocol in 2012 and USA did not ratify it. 

In a stark demonstration of the dishonesty and insincerity of the 37 highly polluting countries, the Doha Amendment to Kyoto Protocol for the second commitment period entered into force only 31 December 2020 on the expiry of second commitment period, making all talk of combating climate crisis by these 37 countries even under Paris Agreement totally untrustworthy. 

In a clear illustration of how international law is just a declaration of pious intentions, Paris Agreement entered into force in November 2016 within 6 months of its adoption, prior to the entry of force of the second commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. In effect, it is crystal clear that Washington Declaration was aimed at killing the Kyoto Protocol. There was no need for non-binding Paris Agreement, there was a requirement

It is high time for the G-79 (LDMC + AG) and G-77 (134 counties) to unsign the Paris Agreement, and demand amendment of the Kyoto Protocol for the third commitment period. 

The Paris Agreement suffers from poverty of ambition to combat climate crisis. It must be realised that Paris Agreement cannot keep global temperature rise below 2° C above pre-industrial levels. It suffers from poverty of competence to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5° C. It will never make finance flows consistent with a low GHG emissions and climate-resilient pathway. Unless the entire focus is brought on the “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs) of the 37 countries in pursuance the spirit of the Kyoto Protocol, there cannot be climate justice. 

It may be recalled that the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA) that met for the first time along with COP 22 of UNFCCC in Marrakesh in November 2016 was as uninspiring as the COP21. It revealed that jargons like 'climate neutrality' are inconsequential. 

The Paris Agreement is an exercise in linguistic sleight of hand with regard to binding commitments vis-a-vis economy-wide reduction targets. 

It is increasingly evident that market-based approaches involving carbon pricing, monetisation and claims of transferal of mitigation outcomes are simply an exercise in fishing in the troubled waters.

The Warsaw International Mechanism, on a cooperative and facilitative basis with respect to loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate crisis is an exercise in verbal gymnastics. 

The Financial Mechanisms like the Green Climate Fund (GCF) do not serve the cause of combating climate crisis and international cooperation on climate-safe technology development and transfer. 

The Paris Agreement's transparency and accounting system must be seen in the context of right to anonymity extracted by the transnational investors. 

No effort at combating "dangerous interference in the atmosphere", the polite word for war on mother earth can succeed unless these efforts are conducted along side the efforts of the UN's Open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights. 

It may be recollected that at its 26th session, on 26 June 2014, the Human Rights Council adopted resolution 26/9 by which it decided “to establish an open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, whose mandate shall be to elaborate an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises.”

The open-ended intergovernmental working group (OEIGWG) has had seven sessions so far.  Ahead of the seventh session, the Permanent Mission of Ecuador, on behalf of the Chairmanship of the OEIGWG, released a third revised draft legally binding instrument to regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises. The third revised draft served as the basis for State-led negotiations during the seventh session, which took place from 25 to 29 October 2021.

In such a backdrop, G-79 and G-77 countries must act prior to the “global stocktake” and put in place the  framework for the third commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol. These countries must combine their efforts with work underway for a binding treaty for regulating TNCs and other business enterprises for making them subservient to interest of climate and communities. There can be no climate solution without regulation of TNCs who have hijacked national governments in general and in the 37 countries in particular. 

The proposed third commitment period of Kyoto Protocol under UNFCCC must factor in the role of weapon manufacturers including nuclear weapon owners who are the biggest polluters, they constitute an unacknowledged cause of climate crisis. 

It has come to light that Pentagon budget makes USA, a bigger polluter than 140 countries combined. US military is the largest emitter of green house fases. It may be recalled that it was US government managed to incorporate fake climate solution-carbon trade in the Kyoto Protocol. The dilution of Protocol was conceded by EU and others to keep USA as a party to the Protocol. USA became a party to the Protocol but subsequent to the dilution it unsigned the treaty. By doing so it boycotted both the first and the second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol. LDMC and AG must reject fake solutions to the crisis. The EU should recall and re-adopt it's original position against carbon trade. 

In order to combat climate crisis, to begin with weapon owners and the 37 countries must be made to ratify the UN treaty on prohibition of nuclear weapons which came into force from January 2021. 

Gopal Krishna

--

The author is a law and public policy researcher has been tracking and critiquing climate negotiations since 1999.