Copenhagen, 16 December (Chee Yoke Ling) -- The United States has strongly reiterated its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol and any decision from the Copenhagen climate conference that may imply a structure like the Protocol that sets out legally binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets backed by a system of measurement, verification and reporting.

In the closing plenary of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) that began at 4.45 am on Wednesday, US negotiator Jonathan Pershing focused on the need for a "very different structure" from the Kyoto Protocol, and bracketed phrases that his delegation felt refers to the structure of the Protocol.

The meeting to adopt the report and outcome of the work of the AWG-LCA was delayed for more than 4 hours because the US was very unhappy with the Chair's text, especially the section on "Nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions by developed country Parties".

The Bali Action Plan adopted in 2007 by the Conference of Parties (COP) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) launched "a comprehensive process to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action, now, up to and beyond 2012, in order to reach an agreed outcome and adopt a decision" at the 15th session of the COP in Copenhagen. The main building blocks are enhanced actions in mitigation, adaptation, technology development and transfer, as well as provision of financial resources and investment. The AWG-LCA was set up to reach such an agreed outcome.

After 2 years of intense work comprising 9 meetings between December 2007 and December 2009 the AWG-LCA concluded at 6.50 am on Wednesday with "unfinished business that remains open at the COP", as described by chair Michael Zammit Cutajar. The COP began its 15th session a few hours later attended by ministers and some heads of states (more heads of states are expected over these last 3 days of the Copenhagen conference).

The inability of the UNFCCC Parties to reach agreement as the proposals of developed and developing country Parties are quite far apart in almost every key aspect led to a Chair's text being tabled for negotiations last Friday (11 December) in the final lap in Copenhagen.

In the early hours of Wednesday morning the US attempted to have the chair withdraw his draft decision document (FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/L.7) that was prepared after a number of meetings in contact groups under the AWG-LCA. The US objection centred primarily on draft decisions related to paragraph 1(b)(i) of the Bali Action Plan.

That sub-paragraph calls for:

"Enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change, including, inter alia, consideration of:

(i) Measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions, including quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives, by all developed country Parties, while ensuring the comparability of efforts among them, taking into account differences in their national circumstances;

This provision was designed with the US in mind in 2007, for it to undertake greenhouse gas emission reduction in view of its historical and current responsibility for global warming, and the fact that it is not a Party to the Kyoto Protocol. Nevertheless as a Party to the UNFCCC the US has obligations to reduce emissions albeit without specified numerical targets. "Comparability of efforts" with the commitments the Kyoto Protocol Parties is thus the compromise.

The AWG-LCA chair's text met with US opposition. After the 10 documents making up the package of decisions to be forwarded to the COP were circulated to Parties and observers, the meeting was not convened for almost 4 hours. Speculation filled the plenary hall as there was no explanation provided by the UNFCCC secretariat.

Eventually Cutajar separately consulted the groupings of Parties outside the hall and news filtered through that the US wanted the main document (FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/L.7) to be withdrawn, amended and re-issued. According to several delegates, most Parties initially refused to accept this procedure and it was understood that the chair did not wish to re-open the document. Most Parties had their respective concerns and disappointments with the chair's draft decisions but responded to the chair's plea that time is running out.

The plenary was finally convened at 4.45 am. Following the chair's explanation of the package of decisions that would be forwarded to the COP, the US was invited to make its comments and proposals from the floor. Pershing said that many in the room would have preferred if Cutajar had indicated more brackets (in the chair's draft decision) and he found himself "a bit disquieted".

He proceeded to bracket numbers referring to aggregate range of emission reductions in paragraph 12 of the L.7 document, preferring a bracketed option "[x]" with a footnote explaining that, "x is equal to the sum of the reductions by Parties".

This is a reiteration of the US position that emission reductions should be determined by each country in a "bottom up" manner and implemented domestically. The Kyoto Protocol sets a top down aggregate number for emission reduction, and the chair's text sets out Parties' proposals of at least 25-40% or in the order of 30, 40 or 45% from 1990 levels by 2020.

The US bracketed 4 more paragraphs as follows:

"The efforts of developed country Parties to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions shall be comparable [in legal form, magnitude] of effort [and provisions for measuring, reporting and verification, and shall take into account their national circumstances and historical responsibilities.] (Paragraph 14: phrase in italics bracketed by the US.)

The Protocol has a compliance system and the Bali Action Plan provides for measurement, reporting and verification. The US prefers a low level of comparability with Kyoto Protocol Parties' commitments and does not want to factor in its historical responsibilities.

"Developed country Parties' quantified economy-wide emission reduction objectives shall be formulated as a percentage reduction in greenhouse gas emissions [for the period [from 2013 to 2020] compared to 1990 or another base year adopted under the Convention] (Paragraph 14: phrase in italics bracketed by the US; the numbers are from the Chair based on Parties' proposals.)

The US prefers the base year of 2005 instead of the current 1990 under the Protocol, with the former recording a higher level of emission.

Nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions by developed country Parties shall be measured, reported and verified in accordance with existing and any further guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties, [taking into account the relevant provisions of the Kyoto Protocol] (Paragraph 19: phrase in italics bracketed by the US.)

Pershing said that, "it would come as no surprise" that the US brackets that phrase referring to the Kyoto Protocol.

He also asked for the word "shall" to be replaced by "should" - for example, paragraph 12 states that developed country parties "shall undertake, individually or jointly, legally binding nationally appropriate national commitment .

Cutajar responded by saying that in previous discussions on this issue he had pointed out that the use of "shall" in the context of a COP decision was not legally binding. But there are different legal opinions on this and so he will put the shall/should question into the basket of issues (to be determined in the next part of the work) and that he will make sure the COP President is aware of all the issues.

On the section "Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties", the US expressed "substantial discomfort" with it saying that a "fundamental revision" is needed. It proposed bracketing the entire section that contains 2 draft decisions and inserting words "Option 1" before each one, followed by an insertion of "Option 2" after each one. Option 2 would be "alternatives suggested by Parties," and according to the US this is to give a clear sense that there are different ways to think about this problem.

Sweden, speaking for the European Union, said that while it understood the time pressure it was disappointed with the paper. It wants the chair to convey to the COP "in no uncertain terms" that it was unacceptable to leave other UNFCCC Parties (not Party to the Kyoto Protocol) with no legally binding requirements. It felt very strongly that developed country Parties' mitigation actions should be fully accountable and work within a system of measurement, reporting and verification. It also said that the draft decision related to "major economies" was too weak and unacceptable.

Japan said it also has serious concerns with the decisions on mitigation actions. It placed double brackets on paragraph 16 that states that for Parties to the Kyoto Protocol the quantified economy-wide emission reduction objectives shall be those adopted for the second commitment period under the Protocol Parties while for developed country Parties that are not Kyoto Protocol Parties, the agreed quantified emission reduction objectives shall be those listed in appendix 1 to the COP decision (the latter not being economy wide not subject to compliance requirements).

It also had problems with the term "shall" saying that this and "should" determines the legal nature of the COP decision.

The process issue was raised by Algeria who wanted to know at the beginning if Parties were to go through the core decision documents and the 9 addenda on specific themes/topics.

The chair, Cutajar said the draft text is the outcome of fair and balanced work of the AWG-LCA's two years of work to further elaborate enhanced action for the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention. He hoped to present the package as a "core COP decision" and a series of thematic decisions (FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/L.7 with Adds.1-9) and made a plea for the package to be transmitted as a whole to the COP. It is without prejudice to the form and legal nature of the agreed outcome to be adopted by the COP in accordance with the Bali Action Plan.

He said no input had been provided from the informal ministerial consultations to the core COP decision. Some parts were discussed in depth by Parties in the AWG-LCA while others were not. He emphasized that nothing is agreed until everything else is agreed. Paragraphs are bracketed and all are "unfinished business".

Tanzania expressed disappointment that there was no agreement reached after two years and took the L.7 documents as a reflection of agreement and disagreement.

China said the document would provide a groundbreaking basis for an outcome to be achieved.

Several Parties expressed dissatisfaction at the way the decision documents did not reflect issues of major concern to them, and proposed additions and amendments.

With the COP opening barely a 3 hours away Parties agreed with the chair's suggestion to adopt the document and then record their reservations if they so wish.

Argentina made a reservation on Addendum 9 on sector specific actions in agriculture.

Algeria placed its strong reservation on market based approaches in section 2 of Addendum 8 (Various approaches, including opportunities fir using markets, to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and promote, mitigation actions). Together with Saudi Arabia they inserted an option for alternatives suggested by Parties.

Bolivia said it was unfortunate that we had arrived at this point of no agreement and made a reservation on the whole package.

Sudan for G77 and China stressed the Group's support for a Party-driven process. It said that this approach allows for a balanced development of the building blocks of the Bali Action Plan. A transparent and bottom-up approach is the only way to arrive at a fair and balanced result. While there is a great sense of urgency and mounting pressure, the Group also has serious concerns over the organization of work.

We do need the assurance that this work will be the basis of any outcome that results from Copenhagen, it emphasised.

TWN Update No. 19
Copenhagen News Update
16 December 2009
Published by the Third World Network
www.twnside.org.sg

| More...

• Add New
• Search
• RSS

Comments (0)

Write comment

Your Contact Details:

Name:

Email: do not notifynotify

Comment:

Title:

UBBCode:         -color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge

Message:

Security

Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 4.0 beta2