The fifteenth Conference of Parties was supposed to be a very crucial meet to commit a low carbon future. The 17000 delegates and 30000 activists gathered with a very big hope, a hope to reach a meaningful conclusion to restrict the carbon emission of the major emitters and to assure a sustainable future to the rest of the world. The Bella Centre had various groups from NGOs to youths demonstrating for a fair decision by the policy makers.

Despite big expectations, nothing substantial could be achieved in the conference. After eight draft texts and all-day talks between 115 world leaders, it was left to leaders of few power countries to broker a political agreement. The highly controversial Copenhagen accord has removed the commitments to emission reductions as previously established by Kyoto Protocol and also, all references to 1.5 degree Celsius in past drafts were removed.

The main reason of the failure at Copenhagen was the desire of majority of nations to maintain economic development sacrificing the climatic security. The developing countries like India and China made a stand that they couldn’t handicap their rising economy by making a commitment to reduce the carbon emission and the developed countries were not ready to commit to more emission reduction as compared to the developing ones. The issue of historical debt created a lot of chaos in the conference room. The developed countries were not ready to accept this debt and the developing ones were not ready to forget the debt.

The other reason for the failure was the altercation about finance that the developed countries should offer to the developing countries to adopt sustainable technologies and maintain the economy by reducing the emission. The developed blocs didn’t offer as much as the other half demanded and majority of developing nations, mostly the African countries, were dissatisfied.

Even though the goals of Copenhagen meet were pre-defined, nothing concrete decision could be made. The cracks between the world’s economies were clearly seen well before the summit due to which many environmentalists had even predicted the failure pretty well before the Copenhagen meet. Despite this, the world leaders spent the 11 days of the summit in mere speechmaking and unreasonable discussions.

The unwillingness of American Senate to pass the climate bill, stubbornness of China and India to commit to emission reduction, and disruption of G77 due to wide differences in national interests  have been thought of as the major barriers in the path from deadlocks to dissolution at COP15. The leakage of Danish text also created a panic in Bella centre, shattering the trust of developing nations on the developed ones.

My personal say is that the greatest reason of the failure of this summit was immature preparation and lack of collective leadership. It is possible to control the amount of emission of developing countries if they receive enough technical and financial assistance from developed countries. For this, a joint and continuous effort by the international community was necessary. But there was not enough preparation. Few intercessions were there just for the sake of intercessions and the countries couldn’t come up with a condensed draft devoid of brackets before coming to Copenhagen.

However, the political commitment and sense of direction towards a low-emissions world during the Copenhagen meet are overwhelming. Now, what we need is enough meaningful and purposeful discussions before the Mexico meet for a fair, ambitious and binding deal.

YOU, yeah YOU- drive YOURSELF hard for a meaningful and purposeful COP this year.

Abstract:

From Arthashastra by Kautilya to Bombay Nuisance Act in British regime to recent National Environment Policy,India is way ahead in terms of formulation of policies. Even strong constitutional and legislative frameworks exist. Mandatory Environment Impact Assessment and submission of annual Environmental Statement is also a strong indicator of environmental regulation. Despite having this strong framework, bureaucratic corruption has made it very easy to get government clearances for projects that deteriorate environment. A number of social, economic and institutional factors have made the realisation of existing policies difficult. Although the policy to combine the elements of economic efficiency, intergenerational equity, social concerns and environmental protection has been regularly updated, more emphasis has been given to the promotion of policies and programmes for economic growth through intensive resource and energy use, as is evident in natural resource depletion. Decentralisation of environmental policy is crucial.  Project-specific legislations, at sub-national levels, is needed to enhance participation equity as well as development. While International treaties are moving progressively to enable public participation, our domestic laws are being diluted to limit and restrict public participation. Evolving new models for environmental legislation based on the notion of law as a programme of social action, entailing people’s participation and cooperation, is necessary.  India is signatory to various international conventions having a direct bearing on environmental protection and conservation, so it is necessary to incorporate new and innovative policy measures in agreement with international standards without compromising the needs at local level.

Keywords: Environmental Policy; Glocal-level Implementation; India

-Presented at National Research Conference on Climate Change, IIT-Delhi, March 5-6,2010

For full length presentation,Environmental Policy of India by Prajwal Baral and Pratap Vardhan

A week long anti-polythene campaign yielded enough plastic to tar a stretch of 138 kilometers in the north Indian state

The Public Works Department of Himachal Pradesh has started constructing roads with plastic and polythene waste/ Photo credit: Tripcrazed

of Himachal Pradesh. Pilots indicate that these roads are cost effective and durable. During the weeklong ‘Polythene Hatao, Paryavaran Bachao (remove polythene, save environment)’ campaign carried out across the state in December, about 1,381 quintals of waste was collected, a government spokesperson said.

“The entire plastic waste (1,381 quintals) would be used for laying plastic-bitumen mix roads in the state. This waste would be sufficient to tar a stretch of 138 km,” the spokesperson said.

The waste plastic such as carry bags, disposable cups and laminated plastics like pouches of chips, pan masala, aluminium foil and packaging material used for biscuits, chocolates, and milk and grocery items was used in surfacing roads.

It is said that the plastic blend not only helps lowering the cost of tarring but also enhances the durability of roads because of higher binding strength of plastic. It is also said that if plastic waste could be mixed up to 15%, this would lead to saving of equivalent quantity of asphalt, reducing the overall construction cost.“The plastic waste replaces 10% to 15% of the bitumen and thus saves approximately Rs 35,000 to Rs 45,000 per km of a road stretch,” PWD superintending engineer Naresh Sharma said.

Himachal Pradesh imposed on October 2, 2009, a ban on the production, storage, use, sale and distribution of all types of polythene bags made of non-biodegradable materials. The government is also planning to include all plastic materials like disposable plates, cups and glasses in the ambit of the ban.

The ban on use of coloured polythene bags manufactured from recycled plastic was initially imposed on January 1, 1999. Later in 2004, the ban was imposed under Section 7(h) of the State Non-Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Rules on the use of small polythene bags having thickness less than 70 microns and size less than 18”x12”. But last year a total ban was imposed on the use of polythene bags of all types and sizes.

“Though there is a complete ban on the use of polythene in the state, still a large number of used polybags are lying scattered here and there. Our effort now is to totally remove them so that its effect on nature could be minimised as much as possible,” Chief Minister Prem Kumar Dhumal said.

But there is a BIG WHAT (?) What about the pollution caused by burning of those huge heaps of polythene bags dumped in various parts of state to mix them with the materials for road construction? Or are we JUST HAPPY about the amazing roads constructed using the problematic plastics???

[Source: Different web portals]

Goris Mustaqim, 26 years old Indonesian Climate Champion, is one among the only few youths in the world who has taken an exceptional step to address the climate change issue from his own level. Graduated in 2006 from Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB), the most prestigious university in Indonesia, majoring in Civil Engineering, Goris founded Asgar Muda Foundation, Garut Youth Organization, whose vision is to develop character and contribution of youth for prosperity of citizens.

I am very happy that I got a chance to take an e-interview of this outstanding fellow.

Excerpts from an interview with Goris:

What led you to start ASGAR MUDA foundation and what have you done so far?

I truly believe that Indonesia’s future is in the hands of youth. I wanted to create a success story that would inspire all youths and thus founded Asgar Muda foundation. We have several programs related to climate change issues, particularly in green energy area. We try to solve economic problems using social approach and innovation. Our first project was Microhidro for electrification in rural areas in Garut. It was collaboration of Asgar Muda and Electrical Engineering Students’ Union of ITB and Chevron. It has already been implemented in May 2009 in Cihurip, Garut. We use hydro power potentials in rural area to produce electricity up to 2500 watt.

What is your project of substituting energy from fossil fuel with geothermal energy? Where are you making its application currently?

An ongoing project is direct use of geothermal energy for Akarwangi distillation in Garut. Akarwangi (Vetiver) is one of Garut’s comparative advantage. This plant can only grow well in limited places, such as Garut and Haiti. Akarwangi is a source of essentials oil. Since 2005, Akarwangi business has been facing serious problem of oil scarcity and the rise of fossil fuels’ price. Indonesian Government has issued a policy to convert kerosene oil to LPG. If nothing is done to find alternate energy sources, we will see enormous number of people relying on this business lose jobs in the coming years. So, this project is aimed to substitute energy for distillation from kerosene to Geothermal. Use of this renewable and clean energy will bring huge benefit mainly in social, economic, and of course environmental aspect.

Is the government or local authority supporting your project?

We are collaborating with Ministry of Industry of Indonesian Government, but no local government. We also cooperate with state owned company CSR.

Indonesia is already a significant emitter of greenhouse gases due to deforestation and land-use change. It is also a serious coal producer and user in the region. As a youth environment activist, what do you think should be the government policy to address this issue? What is the present government policy of mitigation and adaptation?

The action of government must be consistent with what it has already stated. The government has set an ambitious target to reduce 26% carbon emission by the end of 2020 with own budget, and possibly up to 41% with international funding. It means we must focus on stopping deforestation and prioritize wetland control. We have to control land use change. Law enforcement must be the top priority. We also need land conservation mechanisms with community development scheme so that it could involve local citizens. Government must invite all stakeholders to work collaboratively instead of working alone.

Government should quickly build geothermal and hydro power plants and gradually stop those based on coal. It should bring a policy to give more incentive to industries using renewable energy.

Forest fires have made Indonesia one of the world’s worst polluters. How is the government controlling it? Or is the government doing nothing?

I am sorry that I don’t know the detail. But what I have heard is- the process of monitoring and coordination is being strengthened by joint action of Indonesian government and local government.

With 17,000 islands and a biodiversity second only to Brazil, Indonesia stands to lose a great deal from rising sea levels and changing climate. Are the general people aware enough about climate change? What kinds of awareness raising campaigns are the Indonesian youths running?

Not really. Farmers and fishermen are already suffering from effects of climate change, but they don’t know what’s going on. We seriously lack mitigation and adaptation efforts.

Many campaigns are being conducted by youths to promote more environment friendly lifestyle, sustainable use of energy, concept of reuse-reduce-recycle, etc. But more action is needed in grassroot level so that we can transform awareness and knowledge into an action.

What was the Indonesian youths’ stand in the COP15? How do you feel after COP15?

I went to Copenhagen as British Council’s climate champion. We, the youths of Indonesia, have already taken initiative in communities to tackle climate challenge. That’s, our strategic role.

We went to Copenhagen with great enthusiasm that we could bring Bali Mandate into action and hoped there could be a new deal- totally binding, fair and ambitious, supporting global action on global warming. But you know what happened

Indonesian youths raised awareness about Climate Change (CC) by writing in prestigious national newspapers, blogs, facebook, and twitter. Many responds and questions still come to my inbox and page. In  COP15, we also tried to intervene  between the plenary sessions to pressurize the leaders. But, we couldn’t do so.

Though COP15 became a failure, we shouldn’t become frustrated. We must take a stand that no decision can be made without us. It is true that climate change can’t be solved just in 5-10 years or in one generation. So we need sustainability on agreement & policy, as well as sustainability on action. Please, remember that young people are leaders of tomorrow. So, we have to know what all governments and world leaders are doing now and we must be made part of every decision they take.

How do you analyze Rachmat Witoelar (head of the Indonesian delegation to the Copenhagen meeting)’s blame for the failure of COP15 on the host country, Denmark? Was it that Indonesian delegation couldn’t do anything in the COP15?

Before COP 15, we involved in several pre-departure activities. We had met Head of Climate Change National Council, Mr. Rachmat Witoelar and Minister of Environment of Republic of Indonesia, Mr. Gusti Muhammad Hatta and discussed a lot about what we could do. In Copenhagen too, we frequently had meeting with national delegation. We followed the progress on negotiation.

What I personally think is Indonesian delegations were weak at the summit. They were supposed to be more influencing and bridge developing nations’ aspiration with developed nations’.  But regarding Rachmat, I know him well. I know he tried his best, just like in Bali 2007. I am not here in a state to comment on his blame towards Denmark.

I came to know that you have special interest in green business. What kind of scope have you seen of Green Business in Indonesia and what are you planning for it?

I’ve described above that we already implemented microhidro project & geothermal project is in progress. These are the green innovations which can form an integral part of economy in near future.

I am a businessman and I have a plan to start business on renewable energy with social enterprise scheme. I have plan to effectively use solar energy because Indonesia is tropical country and we have abundant potential in this regard. So I’m looking forward to the global investors .I believe that green business is the future of global economy .I believe that if we treat environment well, it will treat us the same. We can make money from it,still preserving it.

What do you want to say to the rest of youths across the globe who are fighting hard to resolve major environmental crisis?

As I said continuously, we need more action now. Those passionate must transform their passion into real action. Don’t be trapped by COP euphoria. We must keep balls rolling. We STILL have the power to save the world. Keep up the good work!! Best of luck!!

Mr. Saryug Prasad Yadav, having an MSc degree in Rural Extension and Development from Lebanon, is the first man who introduced the concept of organic farming in Nepal through a seminar in 1992. Having served the government of Nepal for 23 years and involved in the non profit sectors for the next 14-15 years, Mr. Yadav is now working in his own house in Balaju with an excellent technology suitable for agriculture, livestock, environment and waste management. Yes, the technology that is quite unfamiliar among the so called environment activists like you, the technology that is out of coverage despite the presence of so called journalists like you and the technology that is still behind the curtain of the stage although there is a huge potential audience like YOU.

The technology is no other than EM- Effective Microorganisms.

Excerpts from an interview with Mr. Yadav:

Are you the person behind this EM technology?

Let me clear that I am not the person behind this technology. This technology of EM was developed by Dr. Teruo Higa of the College of Agriculture at the University of Ryukyus, Japan. I brought this technology to Nepal in the year 1995 through my own NGO- Community Welfare and Development Society (CWDS) with the technological help from APNAN-Bangkok and EMRO-Japan. For the same purpose, I started EMCO Pvt. Ltd. in Biratnagar for the sustainable production of EM. I even have a mini plant at my home in Balaju.

How can you explain this technology to the persons who have heard about it for the first time?

EM is a liquid concentrate. It is a combination of various beneficial, naturally occurring microorganisms mostly used for or found in foods. It contains beneficial organisms from 3 main genera: phototrophic bacteria, lactic acid bacteria and yeast. These effective microorganisms secrete beneficial substances such as vitamins, organic acids, chelated minerals and antioxidants when in contact with organic matter. They change soil microflora and fauna so that disease-inducing soil becomes disease suppressing soil which in turn has the capability to develop into azymogene soil. The anti-oxidation effects of these microorganisms pass directly to the soil or indirectly to plants maintaining their NPK and CN ratio. The process increases the humus content of the soil and is capable of sustaining high-quality food production.

Why EM? Aren’t there other technologies existing?

EM includes high populations of lactic acid bacteria (Lactobacillus and Pedicoccus), Yeast (Sacharomyces), photosynthetic bacteria and fewer amounts of actinomyces and other organisms. These organisms are neither imported, exotic nor genetically engineered. So, it can be locally made and very cheap as well. Prior to the development of EM, the ability to manage these microbial populations on a large scale in an economically viable way did not exist. EM has therefore become a revolutionary tool for managing the dominant microbial populations and increasing the efficacy of most systems.

Could you please elaborate where it can be used?

The increased level of employment opportunities and development activities in urban areas are the reasons for the increase of urban populations. This increase has caused various environmental pollution problems as a result of social and economic activities in their daily life. Contamination of soil, water and air is inevitable as most people’s activities produce wastes. The accumulation of organic wastes develops odors which is unbearable after sometime and harmful to human health as well. There are 2 natural courses of the Nature- resuscitation and decomposition or contamination. Problems occur when the speed of contamination exceeds that of natural recovery process. To overcome this problem, there is a need to change the direction of flow. And the glory of EM is that it guides all microorganisms towards the course of resuscitation. This is because they are a group of microorganisms that generate antioxidant items that we could truly benefit from. It was proven successful in Kathmandu when EM application was done at collection center in Teku and at landfill site along Bishnumati river for few months during the year 2002.

Farmers are also using EM extensively in making compost out of their farm and livestock residues. Likewise, urban organic wastes can be converted to useful organic fertilizer through the process of fermentation with the application of EM. The inoculation of EM enhances the fermentation process of organic matter converting it to matured and useful organic fertilizer(compost) within 30-40 days. This is being practised in Kathmandu and outside as well within Nepal but on a very small scale by few NGOs and private agency and such organic fertilizers are available in the market.

The application of EM in treating sewage wastes has been also proven successful. The treatment of waste water(effluent) of the hotels with EM and its reutilization is also being practised in several countries including Nepal. Slaughter house and other industrial sectors can use this cost effective and efficient technology of EM in treating the waste water and contribute in mitigating the environmental concerns of all. EM can be used to enhance the biodiversity of the ecosystems in rivers, lakes, swimming pools, etc. It can be used to accelerate the decomposition of sludge and reduce pungent smell. EM can also be used in our daily lives as spray and washing in the toilets, bathrooms, kitchens and other parts of the house to remove unpleasant odors and suppress fungal growth.

EM extended is even added to the drinking water in a ratio of 1:1000.

So, is this EM production your business?

No. Not absolutely. I had not started this technology in Nepal from a business point of view. It was my passion to work in this sector and I love doing it. When the demand for it increased, I began producing it commercially. That’s it.

What is the current demand for this EM liquid in Nepal?

Few years back, the demand was going high for EM. But all of a sudden, it has decreased recently. About 500 litres is consumed monthly in the present context in Nepal.

Will I be wrong if I say that people have found EM technology a cheat and thus stopped consuming?

You will be TOTALLY WRONG. The authorized Japanese team comes here every 6 months and monitors our product. If the team finds any fault, they correct it and provide all the necessary guidance. So, it is 100% efficient.

Are there any precautions we should take in using this EM liquid?

Not actually. But there are few things that you should keep in mind before its use. If this liquid directly comes in touch with Gobar-gas plant, it reduces the production of gas gradually by suppressing the microorganisms needed for the process. And, next thing, the concentrated liquid should not be applied directly to plants. Dilute it with appropriate water and use it.

What would you like to say finally?

I never say- Buy it, Use it. But at least think about it. If you are convinced about this technology, you can directly contact me for further details at EMCO Pvt. Ltd., Balaju, Nepal.

Stockholm Conference 1972

The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (also known as the Stockholm Conference) was an international conference convened under United Nations auspices held in Stockholm, Sweden from June 5-16, 1972. It was the UN’s first major conference on international environmental issues, and marked a turning point in the development of international environmental politics.One of the key issues addressed was the use of CFCs (haloalkanes), which seemed to be responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer. Global warming was mentioned, but in this matter nothing of substance was achieved at this Conference.The Stockholm Conference laid framework for future environmental cooperation; led to the creation of global and regional environmental monitoring networks and the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme.

First World Climate Conference 1979

The First World Climate Conference identified climate change as an urgent world problem and issued a declaration calling on governments to anticipate and guard against potential climate hazards. A World Climate Programme was set up, steered by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU).

Toronto Conference and Establishment of IPCC 1988

The Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere advanced public debate, when more than 340 participants from 46 countries all recommended developing a comprehensive global framework convention to protect the atmosphere. The World Meterological Organisation (WMO) and UNEP established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to assess the magnitude and timing of changes of climate, estimate their impacts and present strategies for how to respond.

Second World Climate Conference 1990

The IPCC published the First Assessment Report on the state of the global climate, which had a potent effect on policy makers and on public opinion. The Second World Climate Conference met in Geneva in November, and, unlike the 1979 Climate Conference, included ministers as well as scientists.The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change (INC) was established under the auspices of the General Assembly to negotiate the Convention text.

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) Rio de Janeiro (Earth Summit) 1992

The major outcome of the Rio convention were primarily the ‘Earth Summit Agreements’ which included-

•Agenda 21 — a comprehensive programme of action for global action in all areas of sustainable development

•The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development — a series of principles defining the rights and responsibilities of States

•The Statement of Forest Principles — a set of principles to underlie the sustainable management of forests worldwide

•The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

•The Convention on Biological Diversity

Most countries joined the international treaty – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – to begin to consider what can be done to reduce global warming and to cope with whatever temperature increases are inevitable. UNFCCC thus commenced its proceedings with the annual Conference of Parties (COP) from 1995.

COP1 Berlin 1995

The first Conference of the Parties was marked by uncertainty as to which means the individual countries possessed to combat greenhouse gas emissions. This resulted in “The Berlin Mandate”, which set a two-year analysis and evaluation phase. This phase was to result in a catalogue of instruments from which the member countries could choose and thereby compose a set of initiatives that matched their needs.

Political outcome: It launched a process to decide on stronger commitments for Annex I Parties.

COP2 Geneva 1996

The second Conference of the Parties endorsed the results of the IPCC’s second assessment report, which came out in 1995. At this conference it was established that member countries would not pursue uniform solutions. Each country should have the freedom to find the solutions that were most relevant to its own situation. At the Geneva conference the parties also expressed a wish for binding targets to be defined in the medium-term future.

Political outcome: Renewed the momentum of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations (taken note of, but not adopted)

COP3 Kyoto 1997

At this conference the Kyoto Protocol was adopted after intense negotiations. For the first time the protocol introduced binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions in 37 industrialised countries from 2008 to 2012. Subsequently there were several years of uncertainty as to whether a sufficient number of countries would ratify the treaty, but on 16 February 2005 it came into force.  Several of the member countries of the UNFCCC have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol and do not acknowledge its requirements regarding emissions.

Political outcome: Set legally binding targets and timetables for cutting the greenhouse gas emissions of Annex I Parties.

COP4 Buenos Aires 1998

At this conference it became clear that there were several outstanding questions regarding the Kyoto Protocol. A two-year period was therefore scheduled to clarify and develop tools for implementing the Kyoto Protocol.

Political outcome: Set out Programme of work on issues under the Protocol; Established deadline for completion as COP 6 in 2000.

COP5 Bonn 1999

This conference was dominated by technical discussions concerning mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol.

Political outcome: Held “exchange of views” on selected topics during high-level segment (seen as mid point toward COP 6)

COP6 The Hague 2000 (Part I of COP6)

This conference was quickly marked by vehement political discussions concerning a proposal from the USA to let agricultural and forest areas be included as carbon sinks. If the proposal had been passed, it would at the same time have largely fulfilled the USA’s obligation to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. It also became clear that there was uncertainty as to which opportunities for sanctions should be adopted for the countries that did not live up to their obligations to reduce emissions. The meeting ended when the EU countries refused a compromise proposal, and the negotiations in reality broke down. It was agreed that negotiations would be resumed at an extraordinary conference in July 2001.

COP6 Bis Bonn 2001(Part II of COP6)

When the parties met again about six months after the breakdown of negotiations in The Hague, expectations of a result were not high. In the meantime the USA – under its new President Bush – had definitively rejected the Kyoto Protocol and accordingly only took part in negotiations about the protocol as an observer. Despite the low level of expectations, agreement was reached on several significant questions. These included the extent to which forests and other carbon sinks could be included in countries’ budgets for greenhouse gas emissions; the principles for sanctions relating to countries that did not meet their targets, and the flexible mechanisms that in different ways enabled reduction obligations to be moved between countries in return for financial compensation.

Political outcome:  Part I of COP6 couldn’t reach an agreement.Part II reached the Bonn Agreement (political package). Between Part I and Part II, the US announced that it would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

COP7 Marrakesh 2001

Later in 2001 the parties met again for the regular annual conference. Here negotiations concerning the Kyoto Protocol were (almost) completed. The results were gathered in the documents called the Marrakesh Accords.

Political outcome: Translated Bonn Agreement into decisions setting out detailed rules for the implementation of the Protocol and took important steps toward implementation of the Convention.

COP8 Delhi 2002

At this conference the EU countries (under Danish chairmanship) tried unsuccessfully to get a declaration passed which called for more action from the parties under the UNFCCC.

Political outcome: Reaffirmed development and poverty eradication as overriding priorities in developing countries and highlighted the importance of adaptation.

COP9 Milan 2003

The focus of this conference was to clear up some of the last technical details concerning the Kyoto Protocol.

Political outcome: No concrete political outcome

COP10 Buenos Aires 2004

At this meeting the countries gradually began to open discussions as to what would happen when the Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012. The technical discussions still took up a lot of time.

Political outcome: Calls for action on issues to address the adverse effects of climate change and response measures; seminar to promote an informal exchange of information on mitigation and adaptation, and on policies and measures.

COP11/CMP1 Montreal 2005

This conference was the first one to take place after the Kyoto Protocol had come into force. Accordingly the annual meeting between the parties to the UNFCCC (COP) was supplemented by the annual conference between the parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP or COP/MOP). The countries that had ratified the UNFCCC but not accepted the Kyoto Protocol had observer status at the latter conference. The focus of both conferences was what should happen after the expiry of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012.

Political outcome: Under the protocol, a new working group was established to discuss future commitments for developed countries for the period after 2012. Under the Convention, a dialogue on long term global cooperative action to address climate change was also launched. Parties to the Kyoto Protocol also formally adopted the “rulebook” of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the so called “Marrakesh Accords”, which sets the framework for implementation of the Protocol.

COP12/CMP2 Nairobi 2006

Here the last remaining technical questions regarding the Kyoto Protocol were finally answered. The work involved in reaching a new agreement for the period after Kyoto continued, and a series of milestones were established in the process towards a new agreement.

Political outcome: The programme was adopted by the SBSTA and subsequently renamed by the COP. Decisions related to financial flows were adopted and the two Montreal processes made progress.

COP13/CMP3 Bali 2007

At this meeting the work involved in reaching a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol.It took a decisive step forward-first with the acknowledgement of the most recent report from the IPCC and its conclusions that the signs of global warming were unambiguous; second by formulating a common text calling for quicker action in this area, and finally with the adoption of the Bali Action Plan. This plan sets the scene for the negotiations leading to COP15 in Copenhagen, where a new agreement can hopefully be negotiated.

Political outcome: Includes a no. of forward looking decisions that represent the various tracks. It includes the Bali Action Plan, which charts the course for a new negotiating process designed to tackle climate change, with the aim of completing this by 2009.

COP14/CMP4 Poznan 2008

At this conference the work towards a new global climate agreement in Copenhagen continued. The upcoming change of power in Washington set its mark on the conference, that was characterised by anticipation for the stance to be adopted by new American government. Still the parties reached an agreement on the work programme and meeting plan towards the Copenhagen conference and on the final operationalisation of the Adaptation Fund, that will support concrete adaptation measures in the least developed countries.

Political Outcome: A remarkable progress was made on Adaptation Fund though there were no other significant breakthroughs.

COP15/CMP5 Copenhagen 2009

The last hour deal named as Copenhagen Accord contained no specifics on emissions cuts, but it did commit the countries to look to keep global warming at 2°C or less and to promise $30 billion for adaptation and mitigation between 2010 and 2012 for the most vulnerable countries, including a “Copenhagen Climate Fund”.It also included aims to create medium-term financial mechanism that will be able to provide US$100 billion every year to the developing countries from the year 2020. It also created a framework for international transparency on climate actions for developed and developing nations alike.As part of the accord, developed and developing countries would list their national actions and mechanisms for addressing climate change, then provide information on those actions, and how well they’re carried out, through “national communications, with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines.In this accord,a reference to an end-2010 deadline for reaching a legally binding treaty was removed in contrast to legally binding Kyoto Protocol.

Political Outcome: The Copenhagen Accord is said to have at least opened the door for a future agreement in COP16, bringing US and China,the two major polluters,to a transparent commitment.

To be clear about the technical terms used throughout the text, Click Here