|
Kyoto
Protocol work continues in 2010 despite threats to its future
Much
of the procedural debate at the Bonn climate meeting was
largely about the future of the Kyoto Protocol. Lim Li Lin explains.
THE
concluding session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments
for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) in Bonn ended
early in the morning of 12 April after heated wrangling over whether
or not the Chair of the AWG-KP should meet with the Chair of the Ad
Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention
(AWG-LCA) on the issue of developed countries' emission reduction commitments.
This
debate reflects divergent views over the future of the Kyoto Protocol
and whether it should continue after 2012 as legally mandated or whether
it should be terminated and replaced with a new legally binding instrument.
Many developing countries viewed the proposed meeting of the two Chairs
as a procedural stepping-stone towards merging the two working groups
and collapsing the Kyoto Protocol into a new treaty.
Kyoto Protocol at stake
Developed
countries have been advocating for one single treaty, which would require
merging the outcome of the two working groups, and terminating the Kyoto
Protocol. This is because the United
States is not a Party to the Kyoto
Protocol, and developed countries would like to have some developing
countries also take on emission reduction targets or actions, with all
countries committing in a single legal instrument.
Some
developed countries are also attempting to avoid the international legally
binding disciplines of the Kyoto Protocol for emission reductions, and
setting an aggregate figure for emission reductions determined by what
is necessary according to the science. Instead, they want a pledging
system, where countries can voluntarily propose the amount of their
emission reductions, without consideration of whether the collective
pledges are sufficient to prevent dangerous climate change.
Developing
countries on the other hand are united in their demands that the Kyoto
Protocol should not be terminated in order to preserve the Kyoto Protocol's
system of international legally binding emission reduction targets for
developed countries, and that the negotiations for the second commitment
period under the Protocol must be concluded so there is no time lag
in between the first and second commitment periods.
The
AWG-KP and the AWG-LCA met for three days in Bonn
on 9-11 April to discuss their work programme, and organisation and
methods of work for 2010. The closing plenary of the AWG-KP was postponed
until related issues being discussed in the AWG-LCA were concluded.
The
AWG-KP has been meeting since 2006 to determine the second commitment
period of Annex I (developed) countries under the Kyoto Protocol, beginning
in 2013. The AWG-LCA has been meeting for the last two years in order
to reach an agreed outcome on the full, effective and sustained implementation
of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These two
working groups were supposed to conclude in Copenhagen
last December, but their work will continue in 2010 and is scheduled
for adoption in Cancun, Mexico
this December.
'Firewall'
The
African Group of countries had proposed deletion of the paragraph on
the meeting of the AWG-KP Chair with the AWG-LCA Chair to discuss developed
countries' emission reduction commitments. The African Group's view
was that this was not necessary as the two working groups have separate
mandates, work programmes and outcomes, and that a 'firewall' should
be maintained between the two.
The
European Union (EU), Japan,
Colombia and Micronesia opposed its deletion. The
EU went so far as to say that if this issue was not included in the
AWG-KP outcome, it could not support any outcome of this AWG-KP session.
This
issue had initially been introduced by the EU and other developed countries
who had proposed that horizontal groups across the two working groups
could be established in order to have closer coordination. Some developed
countries had also proposed that the work of the AWG-LCA should be prioritised
over the work of the AWG-KP. In an official submission, New
Zealand had proposed that there should
be no additional meetings of the AWG-KP in 2010.
The
Chair of the AWG-KP, John Ashe from Antigua
and Barbuda, requested Luiz Machado from Brazil
to facilitate discussions in order to reach a compromise.
In
the end, the following text was adopted on this issue:
'The
AWG-KP noted that taking fully into account the mandate of the AWG-KP,
the Chair of the AWG-KP has undertaken, under his own initiative, to
meet with the Chair of the AWG-LCA to identify information on the commitments
of Annex I Parties, which is to be made available to the Parties.'
The
decision that was adopted by the AWG-KP mirrors the decision of the
AWG-LCA in terms of additional meeting time in 2010. Meetings of the
AWG-KP and the AWG-LCA will be held in parallel. In total it was agreed
that four more meetings of the AWG-KP (and the AWG-LCA) will be held
in 2010 - in June, in conjunction with the meetings of the Subsidiary
Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific
and Technological Advice (SBSTA); and another two meetings between the
June session and the meetings in Cancun, Mexico 'of a duration of at
least one week each while ensuring sufficient negotiating time as well
as allowing sufficient time between sessions to enable Parties to consult
and prepare.'
It
was also agreed, after much negotiation in the AWG-LCA closing plenary,
that the two working groups would also meet in Cancun
'for as long as necessary'. (See box on 'Concerns over Mexican reluctance
to ensure groups' meetings at Cancun'.)
The
AWG-KP also took note of a proposal to the SBI to consider that a high-level
session be held between the June session of the subsidiary bodies and
the meetings in Cancun to 'provide guidance'. This was a proposal by Papua New Guinea.
The
AWG-KP agreed to focus its work on the aggregate Annex I emission reduction
commitment, and the individual and joint contribution of each Annex
I Party to this target. It also agreed to continue to work on 'other
issues' arising from the implementation of the work programme, to improve
the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol.
The
'other issues' include improvements to emissions trading and the project-based
mechanisms; the definitions, modalities, rules and guidelines for the
treatment of land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) in the
second commitment period; the coverage of greenhouse gases, sectors
and source categories; common metrics to calculate the carbon dioxide
equivalence of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks;
and consideration of information on potential environmental, economic
and social consequences, including spillover effects, of tools, policies,
measures and methodologies available to Annex I Parties.
Documentation
The
Chair of the AWG-KP has been requested to prepare documentation to facilitate
negotiations on the basis of the Chair's text that was adopted by the
AWG-KP in Copenhagen, taking into consideration the work undertaken
and decisions adopted by the 5th Conference of the Parties serving as
the meeting of the Parties (CMP) to the Kyoto Protocol on the basis
of the report of the AWG-KP in Copenhagen. This documentation should
be made available at least two weeks before the next session of the
AWG-KP in June.
After
some discussion, a paragraph that requested the Chair to revise the
documentation for each of its sessions in 2010, was deleted. The deletion
was proposed by the African Group and supported by Saudi
Arabia, on the basis that it was not
necessary to provide the Chair with a 'blank cheque' to revise the documentation,
and that this request could be made as and when necessary. The paragraph
was deleted on the understanding that this issue could be decided upon
when necessary at each session.
(Consultations
on the next Chair of the AWG-KP are still ongoing, and will be decided
at the beginning of the next session in June. There are two nominations
- John Ashe from Antigua and Barbuda
(the current Chair), and Adrian Macey from New Zealand.)
The
Chair will make proposals on the scheduling of the issues in his scenario
note prepared for each session in 2010, bearing in mind the focus of
the AWG-KP's work this year, and its work on 'other issues'.
The
Secretariat has been requested to prepare, for consideration at the
June session of the AWG-KP, a paper compiling pledges for emission reductions
and related assumptions provided by the Parties to date and the associated
emission reductions, and a technical paper laying out issues relating
to the transformation of pledges for emission reductions into quantified
emission limitation and reduction objectives.
Lim
Li Lin is a researcher with the Third World Network.
|
Conclusions
adopted by the AWG-KP at its eleventh session
1.
The Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex
I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) recalled decision
1/CMP.5 and reiterated that it will deliver the results of its
work pursuant to decision 1/CMP.1 for adoption by the Conference
of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto
Protocol (CMP) at its sixth session.
2.
The AWG-KP took note of the views of Parties on the need
for additional meeting time in 2010 contained in document FCCC/KP/AWG/2010/MISC.1.FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/MISC.1,
as well as views expressed by Parties during its eleventh session.
3.
The AWG-KP agreed to continue its work in 2010 in accordance
with its work programme. It further agreed to focus its work on
the issues identified in paragraph 49 (a) ('consideration of the
scale of emission reductions to be achieved by Annex I Parties
in aggregate'.) and (b) ('consideration of the contribution of
Annex I Parties, individually or jointly, consistent with Article
4 of the Kyoto Protocol, to the scale of emission reductions to
be achieved by Annex I Parties in aggregate') of document FCCC/KP/AWG/2008/8,
and to continue to work on the issues identified in paragraph
49 (c) ('other issues arising from the implementation of the work
programme, with due attention to improving the environmental integrity
of the Kyoto Protocol') of the same document.
4.
The AWG-KP agreed that its twelfth session would be held
in conjunction with the thirty-second sessions of the Subsidiary
Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific
and Technological Advice (SBSTA), as well as to hold its fifteenth
session in conjunction with the sixth session of the CMP for as
long as necessary. The AWG-KP further agreed that its sessions
would be held in conjunction with those of the Ad Hoc Working
Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA).
5.
The AWG-KP agreed that in order to conclude its work it
would need to hold two sessions between its twelfth session and
the sixth session of the CMP, of a duration of at least one week
each, while ensuring sufficient negotiating time as well as allowing
sufficient time between sessions to enable Parties to consult
and prepare in order to enable the AWG-KP to continue its work
and to deliver the results of its work pursuant to decision 1/CMP.1
for adoption by the CMP at its sixth session. The AWG-KP requested
the secretariat to make the necessary arrangements.
6.
The AWG-KP took note of a proposal for the SBI to consider
the option that a high-level session be held between the thirty-second
sessions of the SBI and the SBSTA and the sixth session of the
CMP to provide guidance.
7.
The AWG-KP invited Parties in a position to do so to offer,
as soon as possible, to host such sessions.
8.
The AWG-KP expressed appreciation for the contributions
received from Parties for the work of the AWG-KP and strongly
urged Parties in a position to do so to provide contributions
to the Trust Fund for Participation in the UNFCCC Process and
the Trust Fund for Supplementary Activities in order to ensure
the widest possible participation in the negotiations, aimed at
funding two delegates from each eligible Party and a third delegate
from the least developed countries and small island developing
States.
9.
The AWG-KP acknowledged that financial contributions or firm pledges
should preferably be made by 26 April 2010 for its thirteenth
session and by 9 June 2010 for the fourteenth and subsequent sessions,
to allow the secretariat to make the necessary arrangements.
10.
The AWG-KP requested its Chair:
(a) To prepare documentation to facilitate negotiations on the
basis of the annex to the report of the AWG-KP on its tenth session,
taking into consideration the work undertaken and decisions adopted
by the CMP at its fifth session on the basis of the report of
the AWG-KP on its tenth session, for consideration by the AWG-KP
at its twelfth session, and to make this documentation available
at least two weeks before that session;
(b) To make proposals on the scheduling of the issues referred
to in paragraph 3 above in his scenario note prepared for each
of its sessions in 2010, bearing in mind the focus specified in
that paragraph.
11.
In order to make progress in its work under paragraph 3
above, the AWG-KP requested the secretariat to prepare for consideration
by the AWG-KP at its twelfth session:
(a) A paper compiling pledges for emission reductions and related
assumptions provided by the Parties to date and the associated
emission reductions;
(b) A technical paper laying out issues relating to the transformation
of pledges for emission reductions into quantified emission limitation
and reduction objectives.
12.
The AWG-KP noted that taking fully into account the mandate
of the AWG-KP, the Chair of the AWG-KP has undertaken, under his
own initiative, to meet with the Chair of the AWG-LCA to identify
information on commitments of Annex I Parties which is to be made
available to Parties.
|
|
Concerns
over Mexican reluctance to ensure groups' meetings at Cancun
Meena
Raman
DEVELOPING
countries, on the final day of the climate talks in Bonn on 11
April, expressed surprise at the proposal by the Government of
Mexico, the host of the sixteenth meeting of the Conference of
Parties (COP16), not to already schedule time for the conduct
of meetings of the two working groups under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol
during the COP16 in Cancun in November this year.
Several
developing countries stated that it was the normal practice in
the meetings of the UNFCCC's Conference of Parties to also include
meetings of its subsidiary bodies, such as the working groups.
In
an intense exchange between the Mexican delegation and developing
countries that lasted around two hours, at issue was whether a
COP President can make decisions about working group meetings
or whether it was a matter for Parties to make that decision.
The
G77 and China
was concerned that not having working groups meet to carry out
negotiations during the duration of the COP was deviating from
established practice.
The
final session of the Bonn meeting saw a tug-of-will between Mexico,
which insisted on its right as the COP President to decide on
the organisation and procedures as regards the COP meetings, and
developing countries, which insisted that negotiations on the
texts of the two working groups (on long-term cooperative action
or AWG-LCA and on the Kyoto Protocol) must continue in Cancun
and that it was a decision for the Parties and not the host country
to make.
Eventually,
following a proposal by the Chair of the AWG-LCA and the Secretariat,
Mexico agreed that the thirteenth
session of the AWG-LCA will be held in conjunction with COP16
'for as long as necessary'.
While
being puzzled by the Mexican reluctance, the developing countries
have fears that the organisers may be planning exclusive meetings
at high level (heads of governments or ministers) in Cancun that
deviate from the transparent and inclusive processes of the United
Nations, as happened in Copenhagen
that led to its failure.
In
Copenhagen, a small group of political leaders were invited by
the host country Denmark to a secretive meeting which resulted
in the Copenhagen Accord, which was not adopted but only 'taken
note of' because of the objections of many countries that said
they had not mandated or even known about the small-group meeting.
|
*Third
World Resurgence No. 236,
April 2010, pp 13-16
|
