After getting the longest ever extension in the history of annual UN climate conferences, two weeks of talks ended on a disappointing note on Sunday with all key issues — rules on carbon markets, ‘ambition’ and long-term finance — being pushed to the next round of talks in Glasgow in 2020.

Though some progress was made in terms of putting certain references on ‘ambition’ to bridge the emission gap by next year through a ‘compromised’ and diluted text to have consensus, negotiators from 197 countries failed to frame rules for the much awaited carbon markets as no agreement was reached on contentious issues such as the fate of old credits and measures to avoid double-counting. 

Issues of longterm finance (predictable and adequate) too saw a sharp divide during negotiations at the climate talks which went over 43 hours beyond the official deadline. It eventually forced the COP25 presidency to move the issue to next year’s talks. 

The final declaration called on the “urgency of enhanced ambition” by all countries to cut greenhouse gases in line with the goals of the landmark 2015 Paris climate change accord. There was, however, a strong view during the negotiations that there should not be a talk only on mitigation ambition without firming up ambition on finance which has been a responsibility of rich nations. 

The unsatisfactory outcome was reflected in the remarks of COP25 president Carolina Schmidt, Chile’s environment minister. “Article 6 (carbon market) would have contributed to help us move forward. It is sad to not to have reached a final agreement. We were so very close,” she said in her closing speech.

UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres, who had tried to bring countries on an ambitious path of higher targets through a summit in New York two months ahead of COP25, too expressed disappointment. “I am disappointed with the results of COP25. The international community lost an important opportunity to show increased ambition on mitigation, adaptation and finance to tackle the climate crisis,” he said.

He, however, added: “I am more determined than ever to work for 2020 to be the year in which all countries commit to do what science tells us is necessary to reach carbon neutrality in 2050 and a no more than 1.5 degree temperature rise”. 

Only 73 countries, accounting for just 13% of total global emissions, have so far come on board by formally expressing their intention to reach ‘net-zero’ emission goal by 2050 through higher mitigation targets by next year. Majority of the countries in the ‘high ambition’ list are developing and island nations whose emissions are negligible compared to big emitters like the US, China and India. 

India had made its intention clear, saying the country was on track to meet its Paris Agreement targets and it would consider new ambition only when stocktake of the current targets took place in 2023.

Similarly, India and many countries, including Brazil and Australia, has been consistently demanding ‘transition' of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) from Kyoto Protocol (pre-2020) to Paris Agreement (post-2020), making it clear that If the ‘carrying over’ issue doesn't make into the final agreement on Article 6 rules, they would not agree to it - the points which showed differences over the issue even during the beginning of the conference. As a result, many negotiators at this juncture felt that it’s better to have no carbon market rules at COP25 than to have bad rules. 

The current mechanism allows emission-reduction projects in developing countries to earn certified emission reduction (CER) credits (each equivalent to one tonne of CO2). These CERs can be traded and sold, and used by industrialized countries to meet a part of their emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol. The countries like India, Brazil and Australia pitched that the transition of the CERs must be allowed in the rules, making them at odds with EU nations and even with the United States which despite given notice for withdrawal from the Paris deal kept on interfering with multiple processes during the COP25 negotiations. 

Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation and one of the architects of the Paris Agreement, however, said, “The result of this COP25 is really a mixed bag, and a far cry from what science tells us is needed. Major players who needed to deliver in Madrid did not live up to expectations, but thanks to a progressive alliance of small island states, European, African and Latin American countries, we obtained the best possible outcome, against the will of big polluters.”

What's your take? Share your views in the comments section below.