|
INTRODUCING TWN INFO SERVICE
ON CLIMATE CHANGE
We would like to introduce you to a new information service provided
by the Third World Network, on issues relating to climate change.
Under this Info Service, we will be sending out (via email) news and
analysis on a range of issues relating to climate issues. This will
include developments in the science, in development aspects, on various
initiatives and meetings, as well as the negotiations under the UNFCCC.
The aim of this information service is to make available news and analysis
(provided by TWN staff and advisors as well as many other sources including
NGOs and experts) on these issues.
This service is initiated in the awareness that climate change is a
major problem, and that action to tackle this problem is now urgent
and is a major priority on the international policy agenda.
Recipients of this service will include NGOs, academics, policy makers
and international agencies.
The materials provided through this service will also be available on
the TWN website, www.twnside.org.sg.
We are pleased to provide below the first two mailouts that have been
sent. Please inform us if you would like to receive future mailouts
from this service.
With best wishes,
Martin Khor
Director
Third World Network
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TWN Info Service on Climate Change (Sept07/01)
7 September 2007
Third World Network
www.twnside.org.sg
UNFCCC VIENNA MEETING "RECOGNISES" INITIAL EMISSION-REDUCTION
RANGES
The UN Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) held a meeting in Vienna
on 27-31 August 2007. The meeting was known as the Vienna Climate Talks
and comprised two events: a session of the Ad Hoc Working Group (AWG)
on further commitments of Annex I parties; and a session of the Dialogue
on Longterm Cooperative Action to address climate change. The AWG came
up with Conclusions that recognized recent scientific data that global
emissions of Greenhouse Gases need to peak in the next 10 to 15 years
and be reduced to very low levels - well below half the levels in 2000
by the middle of this century.
It also agreed to initially consider an emission reduction range of
25-40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 for developed countries.
This range would be part of a set of information that the Group considered
as "providing useful initial parameters for the overall level of
ambition of further emission reductions by Annex I Parties, and would
be reviewed at future sessions."
The Vienna
meeting was setting a foundation for a series of meetings later this
year, in which the battle on reduction commitments will really begin.
Chief among these are Bali meetings
of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol in December.
In the run-up to the Bali meetings will be a number of other high-level
climate-related events, including the UN Secretary-General's "high-level
event" in New York on 24 September.
Below is a report of the Vienna Climate Talks. It was published in the
South-North Development Monitor (SUNS) on 4 Sept. 2007, and it is circulated
here with permission of the SUNS.
We hope you find it useful.
With best wishes
Martin Khor
TWN
-------------------------------- ----------------------------
Vienna Climate meeting "recognizes" initial emission-reduction
ranges
Published in SUNS #6317 dated 4 September 2007
By Martin Khor (TWN), Vienna, 1 Sept 2007
A United Nations meeting on climate change in Vienna has recognized
recent scientific data that global emissions of Greenhouse Gases need
to peak in the next 10 to 15 years and be reduced to very low levels
- well below half the levels in 2000 by the middle of this century.
The meeting on 27-31 August, under the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), in effect started a negotiation on how much the developed
countries will have to commit to cut their emissions, in order to avoid
a catastrophic warming of the world's temperature.
After several days of negotiations in open-ended as well as small groups,
the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties
under the Kyoto Protocol agreed to initially consider an emission reduction
range of 25-40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 for developed countries.
This range would be part of a set of information that the Group considered
as "providing useful initial parameters for the overall level of
ambition of further emission reductions by Annex I Parties, and would
be reviewed at future sessions."
An earlier draft of the conclusions, which was supported by the European
Union, adopted this range as an initial indicative range of emission
reduction commitments. However, it was rejected by other developed countries,
including Japan, Canada
and Russia.
The softer language of its being a "useful initial parameter"
was finally adopted as a compromise.
The Vienna
meeting was setting a foundation for a series of meetings later this
year, in which the battle on reduction commitments will really begin.
The Ad Hoc Working Group (AWG), chaired by Mr. Leon Charles of Grenada, was holding its fourth session in Vienna, as a prelude to full meetings of the UNFCCC and its
Kyoto Protocol in Bali on 3-11 December.
The AWG will continue its fourth session in Bali.
The Bali meetings will be a crucial
milestone in getting countries to launch negotiations to combat climate
change in the period after 2012, when the present phase of the Kyoto
Protocol expires.
In the run-up to the Bali meetings
will be a number of other high-level climate-related events in various
formats. The UN Secretary-General is convening a "high-level event"
in New York on 24 September
at which many heads of government are expected to attend.
This year's UN General Assembly session will highlight the climate change
issue. Environment Ministers of the G8 and selected developing countries
will also meet in Berlin
next week under the G8 umbrella.
At these meetings, the most contentious issue is expected to be whether
only developed countries (listed in Annex I of the UNFCCC) are to commit
to emission reductions, as in the present Kyoto Protocol system, or
whether developing countries (or some of them) should join in for the
first time.
The mandate of the AWG is confined to discussing further emission-reduction
commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, for developed countries, listed
in Annex I of the UNFCCC.
The outcome of the Vienna
meeting of the AWG was a document entitled "Analysis of mitigation
potentials and identification of ranges of emission: Draft conclusions
proposed by the Chair."
According to the document, the AWG noted that the mitigation potential
of Annex I Parties is determined by national circumstances and evolves
over time. It also noted that the specific factors and indicators relevant
to the determination of the mitigation potential and to the identification
of ranges of emission reduction objectives of Annex I Parties vary among
these Parties.
The AWG acknowledged that understanding mitigation potential is a complex
process and noted that further analysis would be helpful. It invited
Annex I Parties to continue to work on the analysis of the mitigation
potential of policies, measures and technologies at their disposal.
The AWG recognized that the contribution of Working Group III to the
IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) "indicates that global emissions
of greenhouse gases need to peak in the next 10 to 15 years and be reduced
to very low levels, well below half of levels in 2000 by the middle
of the twenty-first century in order to stabilize their concentrations
in the atmosphere at the lowest levels assessed by the IPCC to date
in its scenarios. Hence, the urgency to address climate change."
In its crucial and lengthy paragraph 7, the Conclusions stated: "The
AWG noted the usefulness of the ranges referred to in the AR4. Recognizing
the outcomes of the contribution of Working Group II to the AR4, on
Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation, the AWG also noted that the lower
the stabilization level achieved, the lower the consequent damages.
"The AWG recognized that the contribution of Working Group III
to the AR4 indicates that achieving the lowest stabilization level assessed
by the IPCC to date and its corresponding potential damage limitation
would require Annex I Parties as a group to reduce emissions in a range
of 25-40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, through means that may
be available to Annex I Parties to reach the emission reduction targets.
These ranges are drawn from box 13.7 in the report of Working Group
III.
"Furthermore, these ranges would be significantly higher for Annex
I Parties if they were a result of analysis assuming that emission reductions
were to be undertaken exclusively by Annex I Parties. The AWG noted
that the IPCC ranges do not take into account lifestyle changes which
have the potential of increasing the reduction range.
"The AWG also recognized that achievement of these reduction objectives
by Annex I Parties would make an important contribution to overall global
efforts required to meet the ultimate objective of the Convention, as
set out in its Article 2."
In paragraph 8, the AWG noted the concerns raised by small island developing
States and some developing countries with regard to the lack of analysis
of stabilization scenarios below 450 ppm CO2 equivalent, which corresponds
to the lowest range (outlined in paragraph 7 above) and in this context,
noted the possibility for further scientific work in this regard.
In paragraph 9, the Conclusions stated that: "In line with the
iterative approach of its work programme, the AWG considered that the
information referred to in paragraph 7 above provides useful initial
parameters for the overall level of ambition of further emission reductions
by Annex I Parties, and would be reviewed at future sessions in the
light of information it would receive, including information referred
to in paragraph 8 above."
In subsequent paragraphs, the AWG also noted that a greater mitigation
potential is at the disposal of Annex I Parties through the wider use
of flexibility mechanisms, taking fully into account sustainable development
considerations.
The AWG acknowledged the importance of considering further information
on indicative ranges of emission reductions by Annex I Parties, including
quantified emission limitation or reduction commitments, for further
commitments pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 9, of the Kyoto Protocol
and in accordance with decision 1/CMP. 1, through their domestic and
international efforts.
The AWG also acknowledged the importance of receiving information on
the potential environmental, economic and social consequences, including
spillover effects on all Parties, in particular, developing country
Parties, of available tools, policies, measures and methodologies available
to Annex I Parties. The AWG invited Annex I Parties to include in their
submissions due on 15 February 2008 information on these issues.
The AWG also invited Parties to submit to the secretariat by 9 November
2007 their views on the development of a timetable to guide the completion
of its work.
At the start of the AWG meeting, the UNFCCC secretariat presented a
new technical paper on "Synthesis of information relevant to the
determination of the mitigation potential and to the identification
of possible ranges of emission reduction objectives of Annex I Parties."
(FCCC/TP/2007/1).
The paper contains an important table on emission stabilization scenarios
(compiled from IPCC data) providing six scenarios linked to different
concentrations of Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere (measured in CO2
equivalent). The scenarios range from 445-490 ppm in the lowest category
to 855-1,130 ppm in the highest category.
For each category of Greenhouse Gas concentration, corresponding data
is given on global mean temperature increase (above the pre-industrial
level), required reduction in global CO2 emissions in 2050 (compared
to 2000 levels), range of reduction in GDP in 2050 because of mitigation,
allowed emissions by Annex I Parties in 2020 (percentage change from
1990 emissions) and allowed emissions by Annex I Parties in 2050 (percentage
change from 1990 emissions).
For example, for the lowest category, the scenario is that a 445-490
ppm CO2 equivalent concentration of Greenhouse Gas would be linked to
a 2.0-2.4 degree Centigrade rise in temperature; a 50-85% cut in global
CO2 emissions by 2050 compared to 2000; a 5.5% decrease in GDP in 2050
because of mitigation (explained as 0.12% loss per year until 2050);
a 25-40% emission cut by Annex I Parties in 2020 compared to 1990 levels;
and a 80-95% emission cut by Annex I Parties in 2050 compared to 1990
levels.
The set of data in this table was the most significant by far in guiding
the discussions at the AWG in Vienna,
and can be expected to be prominent in the future negotiations.
Many delegations at Vienna
made use of this lowest-category scenario (linked to 450 ppm) as the
most acceptable to target for, and they argued for a related 2 degree
Centigrade limit to temperature rise, as well as the 25-40% emission
reduction range for Annex I Parties by 2020.
However, coordinators of the small island developing states stressed
that even a 2 degree temperature rise would be disastrous for them,
and called for studies and scenarios to be developed for ranges below
450 ppm (which had not been covered by the IPCC reports). This request
was included in the Conclusions.
Several developed countries, including Canada
and Japan,
were however reluctant to already adopt the 25-40% range as the explicit
starting point in the negotiations.
Besides the AWG session, the Vienna
meeting also included a session of the Convention Dialogue, which is
a series of workshops to enable delegations to share views in an informal
non-negotiations setting.
The Vienna
dialogue was on the theme "Long-term cooperative action to address
climate change by enhancing implementation of the Convention."
The dialogue had three sessions on the sub-themes - building blocks
for long-term cooperative action, finance, and next steps.
The dialogue gave an opportunity for delegations to speak generally
on present problems as well as "building blocks", with much
of the focus being on the post-2012 climate regime, and the negotiations
towards that regime, which the Bali
meetings are expected to launch.
Delegates also debated whether the Dialogue process should continue
in Bali and after, or whether it should be transformed into
a formal negotiating process on the post-2012 regime. There was no decision
on this in Vienna.
The co-facilitators of the Dialogue, Sandea de Wet (South Africa) and
Howard Bamsey (Australia) were requested to prepare a factual report
of the Dialogue, without providing Conclusions either of the meeting
or of the Chairs, to be presented to the Bali meeting.
The Vienna
meeting also saw active participation of many environmental and development
NGOs. There were also business representatives, with the renewable energy
business sector being prominent. +
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TWN Info Service on Climate Change (Sept07/02)
7 September 2007
Third World Network
www.twnside.org.sg
TWN STATEMENT AT UNFCCC VIENNA MEETING
At the UNFCCC Vienna Climate Talks, the Third World Network presented
a statement on 29 August 2007, during the session on Dialogue on long-term
cooperation to address climate change.
The statement, presented by TWN Director Martin Khor, focused on the
theme of building blocks for cooperation. It touched on four issues
-- science and targets; North-South relations between developed and
developing countries; the need to link development and environment;
and policy coherence.
Below is the statement.
With best wishes
Martin Khor
TWN
-----------------------
TWN STATEMENT ON BUILDING BLOCKS TOWARDS GLOBAL ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Statement by Martin Khor on behalf of the Third World Network at the
Dialogue Plenary Session at the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Vienna climate talks, 29 August 2007
The Third World Network (TWN) would like to make a statement from a
developing-country civil society perspective, which combines environment
and development concerns.
This is a significant moment for clarifying the issues that will be
crucial at the Bali meetings this December
which will hopefully launch negotiations and a roadmap for global action
to combat climate change, especially in the post-2012 period.
It is thus useful to consider the “building blocks” required for such
global action, and especially for a framework or regime to guide activities
after the expiry in 2012 of the first period of commitments of the Kyoto
Protocol.
In the conceptualisation of a climate regime that is equitable and fair,
it is important to put forward perspectives that promote the environment
and development interests of the developing countries.
From this viewpoint, there are at least four important building blocks
towards a post-2012 UNFCCC climate regime – science and targets; North-South
relations between developed and developing countries; the need to link
development and environment; and policy coherence.
First, on science and targets. Developments in the science of climate
change have progressed recently so that there is broad consensus that
the climate problem is real and serious, and that developing countries
will be most affected.
There is a need to set targets for global action, such as to limit temperature
rise to 2 degrees centigrade (in fact, well below that), and to prevent
Greenhouse Gas concentration from exceeding 450 parts per million (ppm)
of carbon dioxide equivalent. Even at these levels, there will be great
damage. At levels higher than these, scientists inform us that the damage
will be catastrophic.
However, the establishment of such science-based targets has to be linked
to agreement on “burden-sharing” principles, particularly as between
North and South.
Second, therefore, is the crucial building block of fair North-South
relations in a climate agreement. The UNFCCC and Kyoto
principles of equity, historical responsibility, and common but differentiated
responsibilities have to be re-affirmed and, more importantly, operationalised
in concrete terms and measures to be worked out.
Indeed, these principles must be infused into all aspects of the negotiations
and reflected in the agreements to be made.
The implications for developing countries of proposals on global targets
should be more explicitly discussed. For example, the European Union
(EU) has made a proposal for a global emission cut of 50% by 2050 (compared
to 1990 levels) and a cut of 60-80% for developed countries.
It is good that the EU has started the ball rolling by putting forward
these proposals and figures. Of course it is only a start and the EU
and other developed-country parties must be expected to improve on their
proposed commitments.
However, there are also implications for developing countries in such
figures, which have thus to be considered seriously. If we assume, for
simplicity, that developed and developing countries account 50:50 for
total emissions, then a global 50% cut with 70% developed-country cut
implies a 30% emission cut for developing countries.
If developing countries’ population doubles in that period (from 1990
to 2050), then the implication is a 65% cut collectively in their emissions
per capita.
This is a very deep cut, and whether developing countries should or
can take on such cuts should be openly debated. It is insufficient to
leave these as implicit targets, as a residue of global and developed
countries’ targets.
The above is of course only one aspect, though an important one, in
the operationalisation of the principles of equity, common but differentiated
responsibilities, etc.
Third, there needs to be more work on the building block of integrating
development with environment. Addressing climate change as an environmental
crisis requires simultaneously a development solution. The development
challenges are enormous, far more than has been generally acknowledged
as yet.
As has been effectively argued, if climate change is not addressed,
its effects would themselves devastate development prospects. Thus,
adequately addressing climate change through mitigation and adaptation
is crucial, and is more cost-effective than adopting a “business as
usual” attitude.
At the same time, we should also not under-estimate the tremendous efforts
required to switch to new development pathways that match the new emission-stabilisation
pathways required to curb the growth of Greenhouse Gas emissions.
For example, the Vienna
meeting heard presentations that the economic costs of addressing climate
change would be only 0.12% of world Gross National Product (GNP) per
year, up to 2050.
If this is so, then operationalising this would still be an enormous
challenge. It may imply, for instance, that if developed countries are
growing at 2.12% a year, they would have to make do with 2% and if developing
countries are growing at 6.12%, they would have to make do with 6%.
(Of course, if developed countries were to agree to reduce their growth
rates more than this, developing countries will have more space to grow.)
This may be a relatively small price to pay to address climate change
and still enable relatively good growth. But it would be a tremendous
challenge indeed for developing countries to be able to grow economically
at 6% a year and also be able simultaneously to reduce their per capita
emissions by 65% by 2050.
Perhaps it can be done. However, many in-depth studies must be undertaken
to show how this tremendous transformation can be undertaken, or it
would remain at this stage only a vision.
On the issue of finance, there should not be an impression that the
sums are small and that the private sector will take care of most of
the costs.
The UNFCCC Secretariat paper on investments needed to address climate
change (presented at Vienna)
has done a good job of stimulating discussions on a complex issue.
It has given estimates of an extra investment and financial flow of
US$200-210 billion required in 2030 for mitigation and “tens of billions
of dollars” for adaptation.
The enormous costs of mitigation and adaptation should be realistically
spelt out, and national studies (such as the one presented by India on the immense
costs of emission-reducing reforms in industry) and examples of costs
of addressing real-life climate-related events, would be illustrative.
For example, in the newspaper USA Today (dated 29 August 2007) it was
reported that the 2005 Hurricane Katrina caused US$150 billion damage
and the costs of reconstruction include US$116 billion allocated by
the US Congress as well as many more billions of dollars to be met by
private financing including insurance.
The 2004 tsunami would also have cost many billions of dollars in rehabilitation
and reconstruction.
Mitigation and adaptation measures would help prevent or reduce such
expensive costs of disaster-related reconstruction. The high costs of
damage and reconstruction also have to be addressed.
At the least, there is a need for a large publicly-financed and operated
fund to address adaptation. Private finance can only be a supplement,
especially since it is difficult for poorer countries to access these
funds and on affordable terms. A fund to address costs of damage may
also need to be looked into, especially since climate-related damage
is already taking place.
On technology transfer, the challenge is also enormous. A key question
is the treatment of intellectual property rights (IPRs) over climate-friendly
technologies. IPRs confer monopoly rights, and can curb affordable access
through higher prices (that usually include monopoly profits) as well
as be a barrier to the introduction or upgrading of technology by private
industry or public-sector agencies in developing countries.
The lower the cost and the greater the ability of developing countries’
enterprises to make use of or to make existing or new climate-friendly
technologies, the faster would be the developing countries’ ability
to switch to more climate-friendly technologies and to the new emission-stabilisation
pathways as well as new development pathways.
If there is insistence on the “full protection of intellectual property”
in relation to climate-friendly technology, it would be a barrier to
technology transfer. The example of how Indian companies were hindered
from introducing a new chemical that is not harmful to the ozone layer
as a substitute to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), because of patents on
that chemical, is illustrative.
Thus, a post-2012 regime has to deal with this thorny issue of IPRs
and developing countries’ access to technology (existing and new technologies,
for mitigation, adaptation and reconstruction).
On new development pathways, there should be more discussion and work
done. Stabilisation pathways (aimed at greater energy efficiency and
emission reduction) are an important component.
However, there are other key components if developing countries are
to explore new ways of looking at economic and social development strategies
that meet the requirements of emission-stabilisation pathways.
The pathway of moving from primary production and commodity-based sectors
to commodity processing and first-stage manufacturing and services to
more mature industrialisation and services, the pathways of addressing
sustainable development in agriculture, industry, commercial and social
services, the pathway of trade policy, investment policy, financial
policy, technology policy, social policy, have to be thought through.
These are massive challenges.
Fourth, there should be policy coherence at national and international
levels. If climate change is indeed the most pressing challenge of our
times, then policies made in other areas and in other fora have to be
looked at through the fresh lens of addressing climate change, and made
consistent with the aims and measures that we are trying to implement
in combating climate change.
For example, at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), there are proposals
to consider as a non-tariff barrier (which should be removed) the imposition
of higher taxes on cars with a higher engine capacity, or the lack of
government action to facilitate financing of consumers’ purchase of
motor-cars.
Also at the WTO, some developed countries are also pushing developing
countries to drastically reduce their tariffs on food products, so that
their highly subsidised farm products can penetrate the poorer countries’
markets, and at the same time they are insisting that the developing
countries’ markets for industrial products also be opened up very significantly.
Developing countries that take measures, consistent with the Agreement
on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), to
provide cheaper generic medicines for their population, are being condemned
or punished by the major developed countries like the US
or the EU, as the recent case of Thailand and its compulsory licences
on three types of medicines shows.
If some of the proposals at the WTO were to be adopted, they would make
it far more difficult for developing countries to switch to an emission-stabilisation
pathway and a sustainable development pathway.
Similarly, reviews should be made of the provisions of bilateral and
regional free trade agreements, and of loan and aid conditionalities
facing countries dependent on the international financial institutions
and on aid donors.
These are some of the issues that at present could be stumbling blocks
that have to be transformed into building blocks towards new goals,
frameworks and structures in the cooperative efforts to combat climate
change.
BACK
TO MAIN | ONLINE
BOOKSTORE | HOW TO ORDER
|