Important Outcomes of other Conferences of the Parties COP 4 to COP 15 under UNFCCC

1998 – COP 4, Buenos Aires, Argentina

  • Important issues were discussed. Nothing substantial decision came out.

1999 – COP 5, Bonn, Germany

  • It was more a technical meeting. No substantial outcome.

2000 – COP 6, The Hague, Netherlands

  • A major issue was discussed in this COP. It was the proposal of the United States in which it said that credit for carbon “sinks” should be allowed in forests and agricultural lands.
  • This would satisfy a major proportion of the U.S. emissions reductions in this way. The countries were not able to met their emission targets and this caused an array of disagreements. The Talks collapsed in the final days and the session was suspended without any kind of agreements. It was announced that the session would be resumed in Bonn Germany in 2001 as COP 6 bis.

2001 – COP 6 bis, Bonn, Germany

  • When this session was called on, George W. Bush had become the President of the United States and had explicitly rejected the Kyoto Protocol.
  • So US did not participate in this meeting. The most important outcome was that the agreement over the Flexible Mechanisms and Carbon sinks.
  • Regarding Carbon Sinks, it was agreed that credit would be granted for broad activities that absorb carbon from the atmosphere or store it, including forest and cropland management, and re-vegetation, with no over-all cap on the amount of credit that a country could claim for sinks activities.

2001 – COP 7, Marrakech, Morocco

  • The outcome of the session was a bundle of decision known as “Marrakech Accords”. In this session US took part as an observer. By this time, the Kyoto Protocol was not put in force, as 55 countries had not ratified it.
  • An Adaptation Fund was established, primarily in supporting developing countries better adapt to climate change.

2002 – COP 8, New Delhi, India

  • Outcome of this session was the Delhi Ministerial Declaration which called the developed countries to transfer technology and minimize the impact of climate change on developing countries.

2003 – COP 9, Milan, Italy

  • In this summit, the use to the Adaptation Fund was agreed.

2004 – COP 10, Buenos Aires, Argentina

  • The important outcome of this session was the Buenos Aires Plan of Action. The steps taken in 10 years were also reviewed.

2005 – COP 11/MOP 1, Montreal, Canada

  • The Kyoto Protocol had entered into force on 16 February 2005. So, next time, when the COP met, it was COP 11 and also known as MOP-1 (Meeting of Parties).
  • It took place in between November 28 and December 9, 2005, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. This was one of the largest meetings, in which more than 10 thousand delegates took part, making it one of the largest gatherings in Canada.
  • (Important)
    Outcome of the meeting was the “Montreal Action Plan”. The MAP called for an extension to the life of the Kyoto Protocol beyond its 2012 expiration date and negotiate deeper cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions. Thus it became the basis of the negotiations for extending the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012.

2006 – COP 12/MOP 2, Nairobi, Kenya

  • A five-year plan of work to support climate change adaptation by developing countries was adopted and agreed on the procedures and modalities for the Adaptation Fund.

2007 – COP 13/MOP 3, Bali, Indonesia

  • By this time, extension of the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012 had become an important point of discussion. In this meeting, an Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) was established as a new subsidiary body to conduct the negotiations aimed at urgently enhancing the implementation of the Convention up to and beyond 2012.

2008 – COP 14/MOP 4, Poznań, Poland

2009 – COP 15/MOP 5, Copenhagen, Denmark

  • By this time the overall goal for the COP 15 had become to establish an ambitious global climate agreement for the period from 2012 onwards when the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol expires.
  • By this time, it is clear that many Annex I countries are reluctant to fulfill the commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
  • The result is that a greater diplomacy has started for laying the foundation of the post-Kyoto Protocol agreement.
  • By this time, the standpoint of United States came as biased towards a less specific “politically binding” agreement.

Tags:

Advertisement

Comments