A look back at the Bali road map

“What use is a road map without a destination?” wondered Stavros Dimas, the European Union Commissioner for Environment, at a press conference during the annual meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bali, Indonesia, held from December 3 to 14, 2007.

The cause of his bewilderment could, perhaps, be explained by the fact that 10 days of hectic parleys on the future of the international community’s response to climate change were yet to yield any concrete results.

In a dramatic finale, the United States stood down on a proposal put forward by India, and supported by G-77/China, to include nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country- parties in the context of sustainable development, technology financing and capacity building in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner. The Indian proposal came as a final attempt to address a long-standing U.S. concern that all signatories to the Convention on Climate Change be held accountable for mitigation measures.

Scheduled at a time when the Synthesis Report 2007 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) bold assertion that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures”, the UNFCCC was expected to deliver the much-anticipated “Bali road map” to chart out a course to check rising temperatures and restore the global climate system to a degree of stability.

As has become evident, the root cause of global warming lies in the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG), particularly carbon dioxide, in the earth’s atmosphere in the period following the Industrial Revolution. The conference, like the 13 others that preceded it, was tasked with the aim of reducing anthropogenic GHG emissions in a bid to tackle rising global temperatures.

“Science has spoken,” intoned Yvo de Boer at the opening session of the Conference on December 3, 2007. “It is for politicians and policymakers to respond to its conclusions.” But, as events at the conference suggested, science itself is never truly free of politics.

In December 1997, delegates convened at Kyoto, Japan, to launch a Protocol that would, for the first time, commit developed countries to mandatory and legally binding cuts in their carbon emissions. Based on the system of common but differentiated responsibility, the Protocol required 36 developed countries and economies in transition (termed Annex 1) to an average reduction of GHG emissions to 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels with differing specific reductions.

The first commitment period was to come into force between 2008 and 2012, when countries were expected to meet their targets. Delegates at Bali 07 had convened to arrive at a post-Kyoto road map at a time when the IPCC report suggested that subsequent commitment periods would require far more drastic cuts. According to the report, “Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years.” Increases in GHG emissions in the atmosphere are largely because of fossil fuel use, with the energy, transport and industrial sectors accounting for nearly 60 per cent of GHG emissions in 2004.

The centrality of these three sectors in any economy and the vast disparity in fossil fuel and energy consumption across nations have meant that emission reductions have been politically difficult for many economies to accept: particularly the United States, the world’s largest emitter of GHGs. Thus, despite signing the framework, the U.S. has not taken on binding emission targets and, as has been evident from its actions at Bali, has systematically stymied negotiations at every level.

As outlined by the UNFCCC, the Bali outcomes were expected to deliver along two major axes: “Negotiation Tracks” and “Building Blocks”; not, as the Executive Secretary was at pains to point out, specific targets for emission reductions.

“It is difficult to explain progress at Bali to our constituencies back home,” explained a delegate, “as voters often don’t understand why agreeing to negotiate can be so problematic.” However, as the delegate explained, a summit like Bali serves to separate the “negotiable from the non-negotiable”, thereby setting the parameters for compromise, concession and, hopefully, agreement.

While the ramifications of the decisions and developments at Bali 2007 can, and should, be debated at length, the one thing that is certain is the centrality of the climate change issue in global development politics.

The degree of public pressure, particularly on developed country delegations, suggests the beginning of a deeper engagement with the challenges posed by climate change. “Saving the poor” seems to have lost some of its lustre at global conferences, but “saving the planet” has clearly struck a chord with governments across the world.

From Frontline

Go to home page>>>
View past news feed menu>>>