Good COP, bad COP: Winners and losers at the Lima climate conference

Representatives of 190 countries agreed the Lima Call for Climate Action early on Sunday morning, recommitting countries to preventing temperatures rising by more than two degrees above pre-industrial levels.

None hailed the deal as a triumph, and no single actor came away feeling totally satisfied with what went on over the last two weeks, or what looks set to come over the next year. But there were small victories smattered throughout the text.

We review the deal, and identify Lima’s winners and losers.

Climate finance

Good COP for developed countries nervous about their short-term economic recovery.

Countries including the EU, US, and even Australia collectively pledged a little over $10 billion to the UN’s newest climate fund in run-up to the Lima negotiations. During the talks, it became clear that this is the limit of what they’re willing to give, for now, as their economies struggle to recover from the recession.

Economists suggest that spending money to help developing countries pursue lower carbon development paths and become more resilient to climate change is a wise investment. They say that sacrificing a fraction of one per cent of global GDP now could save the global economy trillions in the decades to come.

Bad COP for the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) bloc demanding financing assurances.

The LMDC group is made up of 26 developing nations. They made it clear going into the negotiations that they wanted countries to ramp up their contributions to the UN’s multiple climate funds, and give greater assurances that such financing would be delivered.

Countries like Bangladesh argued that funds to help them adapt to climate change were their “right” rather than a demand. But despite the strong language, the world’s largest emitters wouldn’t promise anything new.

Developing countries made it clear they wouldn’t agree to more transparent financing processes, showing how the funds were spent, until new money was on the table. In the end, the Lima agreement settled for the worst of both worlds: less transparency and less funding.

Executives of the UN’s Green Climate Fund meet secretary-general Ban Ki-moon at the Lima conference. Credit: UN Photo

Deal structure

Good COP for the US and China.

Any new global climate deal looks almost certain to be based on the model suggested by the US, which asks countries to outline their own emissions cuts rather than empowering the UN to implement top-down targets. Such a system, known as the ‘buffet approach’, gives countries the flexibility to design their own climate policy. It makes things easier for the US, as it could be operated without the need for an overarching treaty which Congress would be unlikely to approve.

China also secured a small but significant victory in Lima’s final hours when it got the wording of a key clause changed to reduce the chance of outside interference in its climate policy. The Lima deal now says countries “may” provide quantifiable information on how they intend to hit their self-set emissions reduction targets. Originally, the clause said countries “shall” provide such information.

Bad COP for the world’s chances of avoiding two degrees of warming.

The main problem with the approach outlined in the Lima document is that it can’t guarantee a specific level of emissions reduction.

If policymakers are going to prevent the world warming by more than two degrees, as they have promised they will, countries can only emit about another 1,000 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide before we reach net-zero emissions. Most countries are set to announce their emissions reduction targets by the end of March 2015. There is no guarantee and little expectation that these pledges will add-up to action to make the emissions cuts necessary to stay within this ‘carbon budget’.

If the pledges fall short of the negotiation’s stated goal, there isn’t any way to improve them, beyond peer pressure. The Lima conference failed to agree a mechanism to scrutinise the commitments, beyond the UN producing a report summarising the pledges by November next year.

US secretary of state John Kerry addresses the Lima climate conference. Credit: UNFCCC photos

Taking responsibility

Good COP for pretty much every country wanting action on climate change.

The Lima agreement states that any new global deal will be “applicable to all Parties”, and that collectively countries remain “committed to reaching an ambitious agreement in 2015 that reflects the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in light of different national circumstances.”

This text is a compromise that suits all parties. Rich countries are happy that the Lima agreement states any new deal will apply to everyone, not just developed nations. Developing countries are pleased with the continuation of the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, meaning rich countries will have to make the bulk of emissions reductions.

The text is one of the few cases where a genuine compromise seems to have been struck. Arguably, it shows the old dividing line between rich nations with large historical emissions, and poorer countries that are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, is starting to  erode.

Children parade at the opening of the Lima climate conference. Credit: UN Photo

Climate science

Good COP for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Over the last 12 months, the IPCC released four major reports comprising its latest major review of climate research. The reports left little doubt that climate change was a real and present threat, and that humans were largely responsible.

The reports were quoted frequently throughout the negotiations and in media reports on the talks. The conversation within the corridors really does seemed to have moved from ‘is climate change happening?’, to ‘what will happen?’, ‘to whom?’ and ‘how bad will it be?’. That was largely down to the IPCC’s mammoth efforts.

Bad COP for those that question the scientific foundations of climate change.

Conversations about the scientific basis for climate change seemed to have moved to the margins of the conference, if they were present at all. Countries that have in the past obstructed the process by questioning climate science, such as Australia, Canada, and India, were notably quiet on the subject.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fifth assessment report launch in November 2014. Credit: UN Photo

The process

Good COP for Peru.

The Lima talks were meant to conclude on Friday evening. As is often the case, the host country’s chairs had to scramble to get a deal – any sort of deal – agreed. But, ultimately, they succeeded, and Peru’s chairship deserves much of the credit for stepping boldly into the breach when the talks inevitably began to falter.

Bad COP for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process

The Lima meeting was the 20th climate conference involving all those that signed the UNFCCC back in 1992. Apart from 1997, when countries agreed the Kyoto protocol, the process has largely failed to deliver the mass action on climate change it was created to facilitate.

Lima’s traditional last minute scramble, and its decision to defer most of the difficult decisions, has made many nervous about next year’s crucial conference in Paris.

Manuel Pulgar-Vidal Otálora, Minister of Environment of Peru and President of the Lima climate conference, shakes hands with a delegate. Credit: UNFCCC photos

Long game

The Lima agreement is a compromise that fails to resolve many of the key issues dogging the international climate negotiations. But it was always likely that would be the case. Lima’s main function was to identify potential problems with a new global deal before ahead of time, not agree the solutions. And that’s exactly what it does.

Attention now turns to whether countries have the will, or can apply enough pressure on one another, to ensure their commitments are ambitious enough to avert the worst impacts of climate change. The fact that they’ve again committed to trying curb emissions may not be groundbreaking, but it is better than the abandoning or halting the process altogether.

Lima shows that while the talks pretty much guarantee no one country or group win, not all is lost.

Main image: Chabuca Granda mural in Lima, Peru. Credit: DiNo/Flickr.