The Copenhagen Accord is a global disappointment. It is a betrayal of the poor and developing nations and a premium for the defaults of the developed countries. It is an expression of zero concern for what is being done to the Earth.

Instead of joining an international disappointment over a lost opportunity at Copenhagen, the Government has started flaunting the Copenhagen accord as a significant success for India and the basic nations. Spin doctoring is never a substitute for truth. Spin doctoring will never be a substitute for the adversity, which is being inflicted upon the nature, climate and the Earth.

Has the Kyoto Protocol been buried?

The Government has expressed its jubilation at the fact that the Kyoto Protocol has not been abandoned and it continues to subsist. The truth is otherwise. Admittedly the Copenhagen Accord does not contain a specific statement that the Kyoto Protocol is no longer operational. However there is, though not expressed, an implied abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol. An implied abandonment is as good as an express abandonment. The Kyoto Protocol required the developed nations to bring down their emission levels by at least 5% below the 1990 levels. In subsequent negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol, the developed countries undertook upon themselves further commitment of emission reduction of 25-40% below 1990 levels in pursuance of the objective of limiting the global temperature rise to under 2 degree Celsius. However, the developed countries did not do so. In the last few months they wanted the abandonment of the protocol. They have not complied with their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Action Plan. The developed countries have now succeeded in securing a methodology, which is an alternative to the Kyoto Protocol in the Copenhagen Accord. The Accord, in paragraph 4, now requires Annex-I parties (developed countries) to commit themselves to emission reduction targets for 2020, which are to be submitted to the Secretariat by 31st January 2010. This would be kept as an INF document. An INF document in the United Nations parlance is for information only. Since the so-called reduction of emission route now stands substituted in the Copenhagen Accord, can anyone claim that the Kyoto Protocol continues to subsist. Annex-I parties (developed countries) stand exempted from their legally binding obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Action Plan. There is now a complete repugnancy between the obligations under the Copenhagen Accord and the Kyoto Protocol. Obviously, the Copenhagen accord is the one, which will prevail.

The Red line with regard to the Peaking year.

The Minister categorically assured the Parliament that the Government of India would never accept the peaking year commitment. Paragraph 2 of the Copenhagen Accord deals with the peaking year. The peaking year would be fixed for the developed countries and a little longer period would be available to the developing countries. There is, however, clear obligation to fix a peaking year. The operative commitment is-- “We should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible recognizing that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries.” In the next round of negotiations, after commitments have been submitted by 31.1.2010, the peaking year will be fixed for the developed countries and the peaking year with a little longer period time frame would be fixed for the developing countries.

The breach of red line with regard to not allowing international verification of unsupported domestic actions

The Government of India categorically assured that unsupported domestic actions will never be made available for international verification and monitoring; only information would be furnished of the suo-motto steps that the Government of India and other agencies take in this regard. However, the Copenhagen Accord breaches this red line also. It leaves a reasonable amount of ambiguity where the developed countries would argue in the next round that we have committed ourselves to a certain level of international scrutiny. All commitments by Annex-I and Non Annex-I parties have to be submitted to the Secretariat as INF document by 31.1.2010. In the case of developed countries these commitments would be measured, reported and verified according to existing and further guidelines. In the case of Non Annex-I parties which includes India, all domestic mitigation actions taken by them will be subject to “their domestic measurement, reporting and verification, the result of which will be reported through their national communication every two years”. There will be a communication of information on the implementation of their actions through National Communication “with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected.” There are three operative phases in this commitment. After reporting the mitigation actions, our responsibility will not be over. There will be a provision for – (1) International consultation; (2) for analysis of what we have done and (3) the guidelines for this consultation and analysis are to be formulated internationally in which we have very little say. In the event of a difference of opinion about mitigation actions we will be liable for trade sanctions. The responsibility does not get over with reporting only. The accountability is not to Indian Parliament alone. Even for unsupported domestic actions there will be international consultation and analysis of our actions. If the analysis reveal that we are lacking we will be liable for penal consequences, which include trade sanctions.

Is there a legally binding accord and commitments?
    
It is being discussed in the international community that once developed countries and the basic countries including India, China, Brazil and South Africa have agreed to this, the developed counties will now pressurize the more vulnerable nations to fall in line. Ultimately the Copenhagen Accord will become the basis for a long term accord and binding agreement. The possibility of it replacing the Kyoto Protocol and the commitments under Bali Action Plan are being considered plausible. Independent of that, paragraph 5 clearly imposes a categorical commitment of countries like India. It states – “Non Annex-I parties to the Convention will implement mitigation actions” which are to be submitted by 31.1.2010. The consequences of the Accord are clear. India will submit its mitigation actions by the end of January, 2010. These carry a commitment that India “will implement what we undertake”. Information with regard to its implementation will have to be furnished. There will be a domestic measurement, reporting and verification and an international consultation and analysis. The nature of international consultation and analysis will be fixed under the guidelines. Can we honestly say that we have not made an international commitment? The devil is always in the detail and there is no denying the fact that we have been outwitted in the drafting of this agreement.

Who pays $ 100 billion a year for mitigation to the developing and weaker nations?

An impression has been created that for making all the commitments the developed world will pay $100 billion a year and that this resource would be distributed to the developing and the weaker nations. Paragraph 8 makes a statement that the source of funding is not the Governmental resource of the developed countries. Paragraph 8 states-- “This funding will come from a variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral including alternative source of finance”. A very large part of this funding is intended to come from the accruals on account of the carbon trade in the developing and the weaker nations. This resource would have come anyway even if there had been no reference to it in paragraph 8. Accruals on account of trade is not funding by the developed world.

Besides the above areas of concern there are several other important issues, which arise. Some of them are outlined as under :-

• The preamble uses the words “In pursuit of the ultimate objective” as against “to achieve the ultimate objective” in the Bali Action Plan. It uses the phrase “being guided by the principles and provisions of the UN Convention” as against and in contrast with the Bali Action Plan “to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention”. It dilutes the Bali Action Plan.
• Paragraph 1 mentions the need to bring global temperatures below 2°C; it forgets to mention the base line.
• The document fails to take into account the historical responsibility of the polluters.
• The document fails to take into account any mandated carbon space either on basis of per capita or otherwise that citizens of developing and poorer countries have.
• Paragraph 5 makes a conscious omission. Non Annex-I parties have to file their schedules by 31.1.2010 consistent with Article 4.1 and Article 4.7 of the UN Convention, which provides that full cost for technology in relation to emission reduction has to be provided by the developed world. It fails to mention Article 4.3, which provides for cost of Technology Transfer.
• The document fails to make a provision for the waiver of IPR requirements in the matter of transfer of technology.

It is unfortunate that a dubious document is being touted as national achievement. The political leadership of the Indian Government went to Copenhagen under a perpetual fear of being dubbed as obstructionists by the developed world. The pressure of watching India’s national interest was counter balanced by the need to get compliments from the developed nations. It is regrettable that the political leadership preferred the value of compliments from the leadership of developed nations over safeguarding India’s national interest.