The Bali Action Plan: Four Pillars of Post-2012 Climate Cooperation

In December 2007, representatives from 187 countries gathered in Bali, Indonesia, for one of the most consequential climate conferences in history. What emerged was the Bali Action Plan-a framework that would fundamentally reshape how developed and developing nations approached climate cooperation. This plan established the roadmap for post-2012 climate action and introduced the four pillars that would guide international negotiations for years to come.

The Bali conference: setting the stage 🔗

The 13th Conference of the Parties (COP 13) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ran from December 3-15, 2007, at the Bali International Conference Centre. The timing was critical. The Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period was set to expire in 2012, and the international community needed a framework for what would come next.

The conference took place against a backdrop of growing scientific urgency. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report had just confirmed that warming of the climate system was unequivocal and that delays in reducing emissions would significantly constrain opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels. This scientific foundation proved essential in pushing reluctant parties toward consensus.

The Bali road map 🔗

The outcome of the conference became known as the Bali Road Map-a comprehensive package that included the Bali Action Plan itself, along with parallel negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol track. The road map established a two-year negotiating process aimed at concluding a binding agreement at COP 15 in Copenhagen in 2009. It created two subsidiary bodies: the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) under the Convention, and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties (AWG-KP) under the Kyoto Protocol.

The four building blocks of climate action 🔗

The Bali Action Plan organized international climate cooperation around four thematic pillars: mitigation, adaptation, technology development and transfer, and financial resources. These building blocks provided a comprehensive structure for addressing climate change that acknowledged the different responsibilities and capabilities of nations.

Mitigation: reducing global emissions 🔗

The mitigation pillar addressed the fundamental challenge of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. For developed countries, the plan called for measurable, reportable, and verifiable nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions, including quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives. Crucially, the plan emphasized ensuring comparability of efforts among developed nations while accounting for differences in national circumstances.

For developing countries, the approach was different but groundbreaking. The plan introduced the concept of nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs)-voluntary measures that developing nations would implement within the context of sustainable development. These actions would be supported by technology, financing, and capacity-building from developed countries, and would themselves be measurable, reportable, and verifiable.

This formulation represented a significant breakthrough. For the first time, developing countries agreed to undertake verifiable mitigation actions, breaking what some negotiators called the “Berlin Wall” that had previously separated developed and developing country obligations. In exchange, developed nations committed to providing measurable support through technology and finance.

Adaptation: building resilience 🔗

The adaptation pillar recognized that climate change impacts were already occurring and that vulnerable nations needed support to cope with them. The plan called for international cooperation to support urgent implementation of adaptation actions.

Key elements of the adaptation framework included vulnerability assessments and prioritization of actions, financial needs assessments and capacity-building, integration of adaptation into sectoral and national planning, risk management and risk reduction strategies including insurance mechanisms, and disaster reduction strategies to address loss and damage.

The plan paid special attention to the most vulnerable countries-least developed countries, small island developing states, and African countries affected by drought, desertification, and floods. A major achievement was the operationalization of the Adaptation Fund, which had been established under the Kyoto Protocol. The fund, initially worth about US$30 million, was designed to finance concrete adaptation projects in developing countries with direct access for recipient nations.

Technology development and transfer 🔗

The technology pillar addressed a fundamental barrier to global climate action: developing countries lacked access to the clean technologies needed to reduce emissions and adapt to climate impacts. The plan called for effective mechanisms to remove obstacles to technology transfer and for scaling up the development and transfer of environmentally sound technologies to developing nations.

Specific priorities included accelerating deployment and diffusion of affordable clean technologies, cooperation on research and development of new and innovative technologies, and assessing the effectiveness of technology cooperation mechanisms in specific sectors. The Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT) was extended for five years to develop performance indicators and make recommendations on issues such as subsidizing licenses for clean technology transfer.

Countries agreed to establish an interim funding program under the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to finance technology transfer, with more substantial funding expected through the comprehensive agreement to be negotiated by 2009.

Financial resources and investment 🔗

The finance pillar addressed perhaps the most contentious issue: who would pay for global climate action. The plan called for improved access to adequate, predictable, and sustainable financial resources for developing countries, including new and additional official and concessional funding.

The financial framework encompassed positive incentives for developing countries to enhance implementation of national mitigation strategies and adaptation actions, innovative means of funding for particularly vulnerable countries, mobilization of both public and private sector investment, and facilitation of carbon-friendly investment choices.

The negotiations around finance were particularly tense. Developed countries, especially the United States, were reluctant to commit to specific funding mechanisms, while developing countries insisted that their mitigation actions must be matched by verifiable financial support. The final compromise linked developing country actions directly to measurable technical and financial support from developed nations.

REDD: forests enter the climate framework 🔗

One of the most significant innovations of the Bali Action Plan was the inclusion of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) as a mitigation option. Tropical deforestation accounts for 12-17 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities-more than all the world’s transportation combined.

The plan called for policy approaches and positive incentives relating to reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries, as well as the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks. This language evolved into what became known as REDD+, encompassing not just avoided deforestation but also forest conservation and restoration activities.

Countries agreed to support demonstration initiatives involving indigenous communities over the following two years, with forestry negotiations to culminate in the post-2012 regime. A mechanism was established to fund tropical countries to preserve their rainforests, marking the first major integration of forest conservation into the international climate framework.

Dramatic final negotiations 🔗

The Bali conference nearly collapsed in its final hours. Negotiations extended 24 hours past the scheduled close as delegates struggled to reach consensus on the mitigation language. The United States resisted binding commitments and opposed including specific emission reduction targets, while developing countries and the European Union pushed for stronger language.

On Saturday morning, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono returned to the conference to urge delegates toward agreement. When the United States continued to block consensus, Papua New Guinea’s delegate delivered a pointed message: if the US was not willing to lead, it should get out of the way. The room erupted in applause, and under enormous international pressure, the US delegation reversed its position and joined the consensus.

The final text did not include specific emission reduction targets in the main body, but a footnote referenced the IPCC findings calling for developed country emissions cuts of 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. This compromise allowed all parties to claim some measure of success while preserving the scientific basis for ambitious action.

Legacy and significance 🔗

The Bali Action Plan represented a fundamental shift in international climate politics. By moving away from the rigid Annex I and non-Annex I country categories of the Kyoto Protocol, the plan opened new possibilities for differentiated responsibilities based on national circumstances and capabilities rather than fixed historical categories.

The four-pillar structure provided a comprehensive framework that acknowledged climate change required action on multiple fronts simultaneously. Mitigation alone was insufficient-countries also needed support for adaptation, technology, and finance. This integrated approach influenced subsequent negotiations and remains relevant in contemporary climate diplomacy.

The plan also established important precedents for transparency and verification. The emphasis on measurable, reportable, and verifiable actions-applied to both developed country commitments and developing country mitigation activities-created a foundation for the monitoring and reporting systems that would become central to the Paris Agreement a decade later.

From Bali to Copenhagen and beyond 🔗

The Bali Action Plan set an ambitious timetable, calling for completion of negotiations by COP 15 in Copenhagen in December 2009. Four major meetings were scheduled for 2008 alone, reflecting the urgency of reaching a comprehensive agreement before the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period expired.

While Copenhagen did not produce the legally binding agreement many had hoped for, the Bali framework continued to shape negotiations. The concepts introduced in Bali-NAMAs, REDD+, the Adaptation Fund, and the integration of technology and finance with mitigation obligations-evolved through subsequent conferences and ultimately influenced the architecture of the Paris Agreement in 2015.

The Bali Action Plan demonstrated that international consensus on climate action was possible, even when negotiations seemed deadlocked. The pressure of civil society, the role of scientific evidence, and the diplomatic skill required to navigate competing interests all contributed to an outcome that moved the global climate regime forward at a critical moment.

What do you think? How do the four pillars established at Bali-mitigation, adaptation, technology, and finance-remain relevant to climate negotiations today? And given the ongoing challenges in climate finance, have developed nations fulfilled the commitments they made in Bali to support developing country action?

References

1. https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_13/application/pdf/cp_bali_action.pdf
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Road_Map
3. https://www.undp.org/publications/bali-road-map-key-issues-under-negotiation
4. https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/12/issue/4/bali-climate-change-conference
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDD_and_REDD%2B