Editor's Note: Hitisha Dadlani is a member of the TWA Editorial Board and an author of previous TWA articles.
This is the second article in the UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP) series, detailing the major events that unfolded at COP10 to COP20 to tackle the challenges of climate change. The first article summarizes the first 10 COP summits, during which the Kyoto Protocol had not yet entered into force, and the difficulties of bringing all developed-world emitters to the same table. The second article will focus on the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, post-Kyoto commitments, victories, and hurdles in the years of tough climate talks.
2005: COP11 took place in Canada. Climate risks, like the devastating US hurricane season, were the reason the Kyoto Protocol was expected to become operational. One hundred eighty parties and two observer states attended (the US and Australia). The conference was historic, as the parties agreed to enter into force the protocol, along with all the discussions from COP3 to COP10. Yet, rule enforcement was not agreed upon by the parties, with contentious issues raised over measuring greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions sequestration by sinks, technology transfer, and capacity building for developing countries. Crucially, those parties that signed agreed to extend it beyond 2012, its original expiry. The US didn’t sign the Kyoto Protocol and walked out of the informal discussion on international cooperation for future climate negotiations.
2006: COP12 took place in Kenya, Africa. One hundred eighty parties and three observer states attended. The negotiations began toward advancing mitigation and adaptation efforts post-2012, especially regarding the involvement of developing countries, as the economic risks of climate change could amount to 5–20% of annual GDP. The Kyoto Protocol review process was also discussed with a mutual understanding that future actions and agreements must be based on sound science and reliable economics. The discussion highlighted the poor representation of African countries in capacity-building and in the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) among developing countries. Parties did not commit new resources to the CDM to address geographic inequity. The changing political winds on climate in the US continued; California’s legislation established a target of 80% reductions in GHG emissions by 2050 (for 2006, this was ambitious).
2007: COP13 took place in Indonesia. One hundred eighty parties and three observer states attended. The discussion revolved around the decision about how the Adaptation Fund would be managed. Developing countries, particularly those vulnerable to climate change, were concerned about the lack of representation within the Washington, DC-based Global Environment Facility if it were to run the fund in the future. To address concerns, the parties agreed to establish an independent Adaptation Fund Board to operationalize the fund, and the agreement also determined that members would be selected under the direct authority of the COPs and that no implementing agencies would be necessary for nations to access the fund. This was a major victory for the most-impacted countries after years of tense climate change talks.
The conference then shifted focus to developed countries expecting mitigation commitments from developing countries. The developing parties were disgruntled because the efforts still significantly lacked capacity-building by the developed parties. After much deliberation, parties eventually agreed on a Bali Road Map that stipulated long-term cooperation, quantified emission limitation and reduction, capacity building, technology transfer to be advanced, action on the provision of financial resources, and investment to support mitigation by the developed world.
2008: COP14 took place in Poland. One hundred ninety-one parties and two observer states attended. The Bali Road Map was revisited, with developing countries calling for higher adaptation funding, but developed nations made no concessions in negotiations. There were further discussions over the future climate negotiations, with the EU ambitiously committed to Triple 20, which included 20% emissions cut and 20% more renewable energy by 2020, though with internal frictions. Parties concluded the conference negotiations by endorsing an intensified negotiating schedule for 2009, setting the stage for anticipation of Copenhagen COP15. On the US front, there was still a lack of engagement, with optimism toward President Obama’s term beginning before COP15.
2009: The much-anticipated COP15 took place in Copenhagen, Denmark. One hundred ninety-four parties and two observer states attended making it the largest-ever COP. The main issue was the agreement of a global climate deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol after its expiry in 2012. The summit was controversial before its start due to differing expectations between the developed and developing worlds regarding climate change mitigation.
Negotiations got off to a difficult start, and a leaked document, the "Danish text," appeared on the second day of the conference, revealing the secret draft agreement worked on by a group of parties: the UK, US, and Denmark. The draft handed effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank and would allocate funds to help underdeveloped countries adapt to climate change, while forcing developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts. The agreement was to not allow underdeveloped countries to emit more than 1.33 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing developed countries to emit 2.76 tonnes (per person). This leak triggered trust issues between developing and developed countries.
Attempts were made to regain this trust by introducing a new Danish text imposing legally binding targets on developed countries, by Britain, Norway, Mexico, and Australia announcing a climate fund to be run by the UN, and by US support for the goal of $100 billion a year for developing countries. Thereafter, small group negotiations focused on the developed nations and key industrializing nations, further brokering trust over concerns about a lack of transparency and inclusiveness. All negotiations for 2050 targets descended into such disarray. The decisions in the final draft (with the help of small-group negotiations by the US) were rather a weak commitment, as 194 parties remarked only “noted” with no mention of legally binding commitments.
The agreement included a 2°C global warming target limit, the need for quantified action from both developed and developing nations, $30 billion in funding over the next 3 years, a target of $100 billion a year by 2020 for mitigation in developing countries, and international scrutiny of emissions measurement and climate efforts. A scientific paper indicated that country-wise pledges would not lead to a 2°C increase, but in a 3°C rise above pre-industrial levels.
2010: COP16 took place in Cancún, Mexico. One hundred ninety-two parties and one observer state attended. The conference started on a downbeat note, with significantly fewer delegates and journalists attending compared to COP15.
Island nations demanded multilateral action and stressed the need for a second commitment period (post-2012) under the Kyoto Protocol. There were again challenges in negotiations regarding country-by-country differentiation of commitments. Public climate funds also faced scrutiny as COP15 set a target of $100 billion a year, yet only $30 billion had been committed, with more than half from Japan. Such negotiations eventually led to an agreement to establish a Green Climate Fund to support vulnerable countries, though no agreement was reached on how it would be funded. The Climate Action Tracker project assessed the pledges up to and including COP16 as setting the world on course for 3.2°C of warming. Only a year away from 2012, parties decided to continue negotiations on the successor to the Kyoto Protocol.
2011: COP17 took place in Durban, South Africa, with the urgent need to finalize post-Kyoto Protocol commitments. One hundred ninety-two parties and two observer states attended. The conference again began in a lackluster manner, with the UK, EU, Japan, US, and other developed nations united in opting to defer an agreement until 2016. This was due to a currency crisis in Europe, political reforms in North Africa and the Middle East, and jobs, growth, and a looming US presidential election. Negotiations were positively influenced by China, suggesting that developing countries should take on legally binding commitments to cut emissions, rather than voluntary commitments that are binding only at the national level (India supported this notion). The EU and the US demanded that developing countries match the commitments of developed nations. A bottom-up approach was suggested to achieve better success than the cumbersome UN negotiations, which is how the countries approach voluntary commitments on carbon reduction.
The EU was positioned to continue the Kyoto Protocol in its current form, contingent on a parallel legally binding treaty that would require all parties to cut emissions, while at least allowing for differentiation. The proposal was called the Durban Road Map, and an agreement finally appeared on a road map toward a 2015 treaty. China, India, and other developing countries agreed to this, which led to the US’s agreement as well. Altogether, the Durban Road Map broke through an impasse that had existed since the first COP regarding developing country involvement. Parties also made headway on operationalizing the Green Climate Fund, initiated at COP16.
2012: COP18 took place in Doha, Qatar, with the urgent need to finalize post-Kyoto Protocol commitments. One hundred eighty-nine parties and three observer states attended. China and the US continued to defend their limited actions to tackle emissions reduction. Bhutan (South Asia) on the other hand, received praise for its innovative gross national happiness index and its pledge to continue carbon neutrality while raising living standards.
A hurdle for the second commitment of the Kyoto Protocol was carrying forward carbon credits into the updated treaty. The EU (Poland) supported carrying forward, while Brazil opposed it in the name of environmental integrity. Climate finance was yet another hurdle, with the UK, Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands pledging to provide cash until 2015, and the US stating that it was under no obligation to finance until 2020. Developing nations continued to call for increased climate finance commitments from developed countries: $10 billion a year until 2020, with 10% committed at COP16 for after 2020. The Green Climate Fund would be hosted by the Republic of Korea, though funding remained an outstanding issue. With the help of EU contributions, funds would be allocated in the second half of 2013.
2013: COP19 took place in Warsaw, Poland, highlighting the aftermath of the climate damages. One hundred ninety parties and two observer states attended. The US expressed significant concern that talks would focus on blame and liability, with developing countries seeking redress for climate-related damages. Major contentions over inaction on loss and damage were exacerbated as it became apparent that certain developed nations were downgrading emission- reduction commitments. Japan lowered its 2020 pledge of emission reduction from 25% to 3.8%. To tackle this, Japan pledged $15–16 billion in climate aid to developing countries. The US, UK, and other countries remained adamant about not paying compensation for loss and damage. Finally, the parties agreed to establish the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage to address loss and damage associated with the impacts of climate change, subject to review at COP22.
2014: COP20 took place in Lima, Peru, to lay the foundation for the global climactic agreement at Paris the following year. One hundred eighty-six parties and two observer states attended. Parties continued to work through difficult negotiations over the draft text, particularly struggling to build consensus on the legal aspects of any future Paris deal. Finally, the deal was signed with a compromise in the draft text, allowing countries not to pledge emission-reduction targets (the main aim of the 2015 deal). A reforestation agreement was signed with Peru, Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina, and Costa Rica to restore an area of forest twice the size of Britain by 2020.
In the final article, COP21 to the most recent, will include the historic, legally binding Paris Agreement for the first time since 1997 for climate action, as well as the latest COP updates.
For Further Reading
