COP 15 : Nothing to cope for agriculture

Amidst buzzing expectations, rallying protestors, leaked emails and draft Danish texts, the much awaited 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) took place at Bella Center in Copenhagen from the 7th to the 18th of December, 2009. The Conference with participants from 192 countries representing governments, business community and civil society was aimed to evolve a successor to Kyoto protocol the first phase of which expires in 2012.

The issues that were on board to be discussed were the quantum of emissions that can be allowed for each country. To keep the warming below the 2°C, scientists recommended cuts of 25-40% by 2020(relative to 1990 levels). Developed economies such as US and UK which has grown on carbon rich economy, should logically agree for deepest cuts. Although the carbon foot print per person in developing economies is comparatively less, they cannot also shy away from their obligation of proper cuts. Another issue that was discussed was the one regarding the financial assistance to poorer nations to cope with climate change. Poorest countries which cannot afford to evolve with climate change need help financially and technologically. The EU proposal of $100 bn a year was tabled even though the estimates range up to $ 600 bn a year.

After two weeks of deliberations and regular walk outs, an agreement was reached which was widely publicized as a ‘political accord’. The ‘accord’ rife with ambiguities was drafted by the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa on December 18. The accord was "recognized", but not "agreed upon". The document recognized that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of the present and that actions should be taken to keep any temperature increases to below 2°C and support for a US$ 30 billion fund over the next three years for the developing countries. It also includes aims to create medium-term financial mechanism that will be able to provide US$100 billion dollars every year to the developing countries from the year 2020. A very specious part of the deal was the inclusion of a commitment from the BASIC countries, all of which are rapidly growing emitters, to allow “international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines” of their voluntary national actions. Further, the document is not legally binding and does not contain any legally binding commitments for reducing CO2 emissions not even for the greatest emitters. Although the Heads of States participating in the conference were cautious enough to use words like ‘pleased’ and ‘meaningful’, the futility of the whole exercise was widely evident from their cautious words and measured optimism.

The accord, as of now, is only a draft and has to be adopted by consensus by the 193 members of the UNFCCC to come into effect. If adopted, it will form the mandate to continue the negotiating process into next year and finalise a legally-binding international treaty -- something that was originally planned to happen in Copenhagen itself.

What it holds for agriculture is significant. By now, it is evident that climate change is not a possibility but a real threat, the signs of which are apparent from the untimely rains, drought, flood and declining crop productivity. With the changing climate, the crops will be facing newer challenges. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in its most recent assessment that “At lower latitudes, especially in seasonally dry and tropical regions, crop productivity is projected to decrease for even small local temperature increases (1-2°C), which would increase the risk of hunger. So even when the countries at the conference are complacent of their 2°C agreement, their implications on the subsistence farmers are abysmally grave.

A warmer globe means a threat to low lying areas. They can be inundated. Sea water can intrude and invade the farming space. So anticipating a drier, saltier and wetter climate, we will be in need of more of varieties that can tackle these situations. The scientific communities who are sensitized with the issue are already on that path.

As far as the farming community all over the world is concerned, this accord was disappointing. In pursuit of economic development, the heads of state have denied the poorest of the poor their right to survive.

- Anjana Nair-

Talks beyond Copenhagen

The threat of climate change that led to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) at Rio, is perceived differently by different countries. Unsustainable consumption patterns of the rich industrialised nations are responsible for the threat of climate change. Only 25% of the global population lives in these countries, but they emit more than 70% of the total global CO₂ emissions and consume 75 to 80% of many of the other resources of the world. The richer world accounts for over 50% of carbon emissions and China brings the proportion to over 70%. In contrast, India accounts for less than 5% of global emissions. In per capita terms, the disparities are also large: an Indian citizen emits less than 0.25 tonnes of Carbon per year whereas a citizen of the USA, for example, emits more than 5.5 tonnes.

Another theme of Indian analysts has been the lack of reliability of GHG emission estimates, particularly of methane. According to initial estimates, large emissions of methane from paddy fields were ascribed to developing countries. However, the empirical basis of these estimates was questioned; subsequently experimental measurements by Indian researchers showed these doubts to be well-founded. Many Scientists and policymakers belonging to developing Nations argue that emissions by poor who live on the margin of subsistence should be considered a basic human right and should not be counted when ascribing responsibilities for emission reduction.

These facts have delayed any sort of effective international agreement on how to deal with the problem. In the case of the Montreal Protocol covering ozone-depleting substances, there was a wide consensus and effective action was mobilised quickly. Thus, an understanding of perceptions and positions of different countries makes it easier to explore possibilities of effective action.

Even in recently released IFPRI report, it’s clearly elucidated that agriculture is extremely vulnerable to climate change, because farming is so weather-dependent and small-scale farmers in developing countries will suffer the most. During the same phase, we are witnessing unsounding price rise, with substantial reduction on production fronts and weather aberration in the form of late or, almost failed rains/ monsoon, flood and deluge in rainfed and dry areas. Lastly, the study has called for an additional annual investment of $7 billion in agricultural productivity to help farmers adapt to climate change.

India’s perceptions on the problem of climate change and sustainable development; the kind of negotiating positions that follow from these perceptions; the policies India has undertaken so far and finally India’s possibilities for action that can help contain the threat of climate change.

Minister of state for environment and forests, Jairam Ramesh scotched speculation that India was softening its stand by allowing international verification of its steps for climate change mitigation or by agreeing to international commitment for quantified cuts in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. India has always opposed the “full stop” word from its climate change talks.

India has insisted that the measures it undertakes, as part of its domestic measures to counter climate change, will not be subject to international verification and reporting, unless it is funded internationally or uses technology received from abroad, like the world’s industrialized counterparts claiming to have taken all efforts to reduce the emission caps and mitigation measures, but denies any the right to be questioned or scrutinized.

There should also be consideration towards the common but differentiated responsibilities of different countries. As such, mitigation by India in two or three decades is neither necessary nor sufficient to arrest global warming and its consequence according to many experts in the field.

The argument that mitigation is not feasible without India's participation is thus political. As a bargaining tactic, the United States Congress refuses to undertake internationally-mandated mitigation obligations unless India accepts them.

There is a need for an equitable and efficient solution to climate change, so that efficiency can be obtained through a system of tradeable emission quotas and equity through equal allocation of global environmental space to all human beings. Therefore, in so far as the impact of human activity on global warming, rains, floods, sea levels and hurricanes in two to three decades is concerned, the die is already cast. So, it is time to act and further the talk on equity and sustainable basis, which should be acceptable to all partners across the globe and economic classes. Negotiations leading up to the climate change conference in Copenhagen in December are deadlocked on the question of similar demands on developing nations.