The climate talks in Lima witnessed a lack of substantial progress, despite positive developments outside the negotiation halls, such as the US-China climate deal and the $10 billion pledge to the Green Climate Fund. The main objectives of COP20 were to agree on the information and review process for national pledges in 2015 and to develop a first draft of the negotiating text. However, countries held firm to their long-held positions, resulting in minimal agreements and a decision that lacked consistency and a robust review process.
While frustration is normal during the technical phase of negotiations, the lack of progress in Lima will not significantly impact the success of the talks in Paris. It does, however, provide a glimpse into the challenges that lie ahead in the political phase. Breaking away from the mentality of trench warfare will be crucial for achieving meaningful outcomes in the negotiations.
The discussions in the Durban Platform working group (ADP) primarily focused on three key issues: the scope of national pledges, the aggregation and assessment of these pledges, and the differentiation between developed and developing countries. Developed countries favoured mitigation-focused pledges while developing countries advocated for including adaptation, finance, and other aspects. Disagreements persisted in the review process and the extent of formalization.
The spotlight is on emerging economies, as developed countries are expected to take on emissions targets, and least developed countries are not required to set targets. The binary divide between rich and poor countries, entrenched in the 1992 climate convention, continued to influence negotiations. The INDC process faced criticism for becoming overly complex, prompting concerns about its efficacy. However, the national pledges made in 2015 will be subject to scrutiny from other countries, think tanks, media, and NGOs, rendering a UN review process redundant.
In the early hours of Sunday morning, the Lima Call for Climate Action outlined what countries “may include” in their mitigation pledges and “invited” countries to submit plans on adaptation. The decision lacked a formal review process, but the UN will compile and publish all national plans, providing a synthesis of their aggregate effect on a 2-degree pathway.
During the high-level ministerial section, it became evident that the ministers heavily relied on their advisors due to the technical nature of the negotiations. While the troops may have been giving orders to the generals, the ministers’ limited time and expertise necessitated their reliance on advisors during the technical phase.
Climate finance remained a significant topic of discussion, with calls for increased funding beyond the $10 billion pledged to the Green Climate Fund. The private sector’s involvement was seen as crucial, and the GCF expressed its willingness to engage with private sector actors and manage risks that banks may struggle to handle.
The Lima decision acknowledged the progress made in preparing the draft negotiating text, which encompasses options for mitigation, adaptation, finance, and mechanisms. Market mechanisms and carbon pricing were emphasized as tools to stimulate investment, with the potential for an ambitious deal in Paris to impact carbon markets globally.
Controversy surrounded the inclusion of a full decarbonization target by 2050 in the Elements Text, with concerns raised about stranded assets and the role of carbon capture and storage (CCS). Industry representatives highlighted the implausibility of the target and underscored the potential of CCS to reduce costs and increase the amount of burnable carbon.
Looking ahead to 2015, little progress is expected within the UN process before Paris, although advancements may occur outside the negotiations through national announcements or bilateral agreements. It is unlikely that the final deal will align with a 2-degree pathway, and binding emissions targets or monitoring processes are highly improbable. The challenge will be to change the negotiating dynamic and build on progress outside the UN process to achieve ambitious Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) supported by both public and private finance.
