The Historical Background of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Since the earth’s climate has changed and evolved unpredictably, the environmental issues are booming enormously into globalization era, especially in global politics. Some of these changes have been due to natural causes and can be attributed to human activities, such as: deforestation and to atmospheric emissions and green house gasses effect. Global warming has begun to affect the sea level, snow cover, ice sheets and rainfall. Shifts in regional patterns of climate marked by rising air temperatures are already affecting watersheds and ecosystems in many parts of the world. The cost to national economies of coping with extreme weather events, crop failures and other emergencies related to climate is growing steadily higher. As the result, the human costs are also multiplying.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) pointed out in its 2001 Third Assessment Report on the state of the global climate that an increasing body of observations gave a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system. The report noted that it was very likely that the 1990s had been the warmest decade worldwide, and 1998 the warmest year since instrumental records had begun in 1861, although a few areas had not been warmed in recent decades. The report also stated that new analyses of proxy data for the Northern Hemisphere indicated that the twentieth century was likely to have been the warmest century in the last 1,000 years.
By facing those problems, United Nations has initiatively created a global conference, which the first is World Climate Conference in 1979. As the continued and more reliable conference, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change (INC) -as “a single intergovernmental negotiating process under the auspices of the General Assembly”- finalized the first Convention (UNFCCC) which launched in June at Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit. It’s signed by 154 countries and it’s directly held in Berlin, 1994 (for the first time) which called Conference of Parties (COP) I. The Parties to the Convention agreed that commitments contained in the Convention for industrialized countries were inadequate and launched the “Berlin Mandate” talks on additional commitments. As a result, COP 1 decided that the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI, established by Article 10 of the Convention) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA, established by Article 9 of the Convention) should meet.
The Prospect of COP 15 (Special Report from Copenhagen)
Recently, there was COP 15 which held in Copenhagen, Denmark on December 7th-18th 2009. This phenomenal conference is waited from many indigenous figures, governments, NGOs, media, and also grassroots level to see and predict the next Kyoto Protocol (only valid until 2012), and the next concrete implementation from its policy. Fortunately, I was there to be the young Indonesia delegation which firstly could be a “Party” member and observe the negotiation process directly. I was in charge in SBI meeting (for the 32nd time) and analyze the prospect of informal meeting for capacity building issues, either from Ad Hoc Working Group or SBI informal consultation. Idealistic paradigm, the government from 194 countries (which have ratified Convention) should:
• gather and share information on greenhouse gas emissions, national policies and best practices
• launch national strategies for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries
• cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change
However, in fact, there is a contradictive gap between developed countries (especially Annex I Parties) and developing countries. Their interest isn’t matched, especially in terms of their responsibility. As I observed, the developed countries (especially United States) were eager to impose the Copenhagen deal/outcome because of their financial crisis. The developing countries, small island (Fiji, Saint Kitts and Nevines, etc), and Tuvalu always protest and criticize the ambiguous action of US. For instance, when Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) try to make draft conclusion on capacity building issues, it’s been deadlock negotiation and the dispute between developed and developing countries is growing higher. But, it’s simply debate about term of word, like: “should” must be changed by “shall” (for US perspective) “Agrees that enhanced action on capacity-building [shall][should] be guided by the provisions of the Convention and relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties”
So, it pretend that US doesn’t want to fully commit and responsible on their support for developing countries programe of capacity building, and technological transfer. Adaptation, mitigation, national communication, technological transfer, and capacity building are the agenda items in COP 15 which still in deadlock because of no transparency from developed countries’ policy.
The main problem of those complicated negotiation is about money, financial commitment. Some of developing countries/African Groups feel that Annex I Parties didn’t give enough financial support. While the developed countries still don’t want to give more money because of their domestic and systemic problem (many unemployment in US). Hence, the Copenhagen Accord (result in COP 15) doesn’t impact same expectation as all people have, even it disappointed global people. According to article 10 of Copenhagen Accord : “We decide that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund shall be established as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support projects, programme, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation including REDD-plus, adaptation, capacitybuilding, technology development and transfer.” I’m still skeptic about this policy and it seemed to be delusion. Do Annex I Parties really give their financial commitment? If there is Copenhagen Green Climate Fund, wouldn’t it be overlapped with Green Environmental Facilities?
Conclusion: Is there any Amendment for Kyoto Protocol?
After participating the whole event in COP 15, I am afraid that Kyoto Protocol shouldn’t be implemented properly or even it will be diminished by the new term of other Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol actually still beneficial for the sustainable development of environment, like: joint implementation on reducing emission, clean development mechanism (CDM), and emission trading (carbon market). Based on the Executive Board Annual Report 2009 of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), there are now more than 1900 registered CDM projects in 58 countries and 350 million certified emission reductions (CERs) have been issued to about 600 projects. This is the positive impact under Kyoto Protocol which sometimes needs more assessment and comprehensive review for implementation. Hence, I conclude that dilemmatic COP 15 should be resolved into the next COP 16 in Mexico and it’s supposed to amend a part of Kyoto Protocol terms. And the most important thing, the Kyoto Protocol should be used sustainably and amended particularly about the progressive development of grassroots level and also the future of democratic-peaceful global governance.
REFERENCES:
Climate Change Secretariat. 2006. Handbook of UNFCCC. Bonn, Germany
Paramitha, Gracia. 2009. Special Report from Copenhagen, as the Shadowing Negotiation Team. Copenhagen
