|
The 5th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 5) began with the issue of further commitments by developed countries (known as Annex I Parties) to reduce their GHG emission under the Kyoto Protocol (KP). The first commitment period, with a target of 5.2% reduction based on 1990 levels, will end in 2012. The Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) has worked since 2006 with a mandate to conclude negotiations on the second and subsequent commitment periods of Annex I Parties so as to ensure there is no gap between the first and the second commitment periods.
Thus far developed countries have delayed the conclusion of the work and this has frustrated developing countries, and the former have even openly indicated they would like to abandon the KP. At the Barcelona talks in October the African Group refused at first to negotiate on other KP issues until the issue of emission reduction targets is resolved, stressing the importance of such sequencing.
The CMP 5 held its opening plenary on Monday afternoon, chaired by the President of the COP 15 and CMP 5, Minister Connie Hedegaard from Denmark, followed by the opening of the tenth session of the AWG-KP chaired by John Ashe from Antigua and Barbuda.
Sudan speaking on behalf of G77 and China at the CMP 5 opening plenary said that in Bali we agreed to forward the results of the AWG-KP work to the CMP 5 for adoption. For developing countries where climate change is already diminishing development prospects, we hope that the AWG-KP will forward ambitious quantified emission reduction targets for Annex I Parties for the second and subsequent commitment periods with more effective means of implementation, which will result in improved contributions to adaptation and development in our countries.
The Group reaffirmed that the core mandate of the AWG-KP is to define the second and subsequent commitment periods with ambitious quantified emission reductions for developed countries that will significantly contribute to minimization of future impacts of climate change.
However the process so far has taken us in circles. In the last two sessions it has become clear that our partners want to go far beyond this mandate and to dismantle the KP itself, the only legal instrument which elaborates the legal obligation for Annex I Parties to reduce their ever increasing emissions. We have seen that Annex I Parties have used delay tactics and have not met any of the agreements to reach conclusions on their emission reductions, it said.
According to the Group, these efforts completely reframe the Bali Road Map to have a two-track outcome in Copenhagen, with the continuation of the KP for legally binding mitigation efforts of developed countries (that have joined the KP) on one hand, and on the other hand an outcome under the Convention aimed at sustained and full implementation of its provisions. These efforts have the effect of undermining and reinterpreting the Convention, including the fundamental principles of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.
The Group vigorously opposed all attempts by developed countries to reach an agreement in Copenhagen which could in anyway result in the KP being superseded or made redundant. It insisted that a second commitment period under the KP is an essential requirement without which agreement in Copenhagen will not be possible.
The Group noted that there is a huge gap between the aggregate level of ambition put forward by Annex I Parties and what the science requires. So far we have not seen any real leadership from Annex I Parties in coming forward with credible commitments. Instead we have seen many developing countries taking the lead with announcements that they will take ambitious actions. Now is the moment for Annex I countries to show leadership that we have long been waiting to see and for them to shoulder their responsibilities, it said.
The Group insisted that there is nothing to stop Parties achieving an ambitious, momentous and historical international climate change outcome in Copenhagen.
(Prior to delivering this statement during the opening of the CMP 5, Sudan drew attention to the logo of the COP 15 which does not mention CMP 5. It hoped that this will corrected whether by the UNFCCC secretariat or the Presidency. It is concerned about the fact that CMP 5 is not mentioned along with COP 15).
Later at the opening plenary of the AWG-KP, Sudan on behalf of G77 and China reiterated its concerns about the apparent positions of Annex I Parties in insisting on a single outcome in Copenhagen. Repeating the point about the low level of ambition of developed countries for GHG emissions reduction targets that do not match the science, the Group said that Annex I Parties have rejected the use of science as a basis to determine ambitious Annex I Party quantified emission reduction targets for a second commitment period. This low level of ambition is further watered down by the unlimited use of offsets and LULUCF (land use, land use change and forestry).
The Group said some Annex I Parties have also proposed to "copy" the good parts of the KP into the outcome of the AWG-LCA (Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action under the Convention). It raised the question of what are the "bad" parts which are not to be transferred.
The Kyoto Protocol has proved and is proving to be extremely effective in delivering real emission reductions, the Group said. The task for us in Copenhagen is to build upon this success by setting more ambitious quantified emission reduction commitments for the second commitment period. In this process we also need to ensure the effectiveness of the mechanisms and rules under the KP as well as develop means to address the potential consequences of Annex I policies and measures on developing country Parties. We look forward to a strong and effective outcome that would reaffirm our common commitment to keep, implement and extend the KP for subsequent commitment periods.
The Group appealed to all Parties, especially Annex I Parties, to engage faithfully in the negotiations to complete the mandate of the AWG-KP and build a strong KP which is the foundation and basis for a fair, just, effective and equitable outcome in Copenhagen.
Grenada speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) said that the role of the CMP is to advance the work under the KP. It is important that we reflect on the fact that the KP is a central part of the international climate change architecture. KP is a vehicle through which we have established an institutional infrastructure that addresses legally binding emissions reductions for Annex I Parties. This includes the carbon market, the flexible mechanisms, the accounting procedures, compliance mechanisms, adaptation fund and others. These are the central architectural mechanisms that we have to preserve and build on.
AOSIS echoed concerns over what appears to be attempts to get rid of the KP. It emphasized the major task of the CMP as reaffirming the central importance of the KP, within the international climate change architecture. It sees the work of the AWG-KP as critical and its mandate to set new quantified emissions limitations as central to the overall success of Copenhagen.
The current pledges by Annex I Parties are inadequate, and if accepted, will put the world on a track for 3.5 degree in temperature increase, stressed AOSIS. It means that many of us will cease to exist. Our islands will drown, our agricultural lands will burn.
The science has indicated that we have to limit long-term temperature increases to 1.5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and return GHG concentrations in the atmosphere to well below 350 ppm. This will require that global emissions peak by 2015 and decline significantly thereafter.
AOSIS emphasized that this means that the targets for Annex I countries for the second commitment period have to be an aggregate reduction of at least 45% below 1990 levels by 2020 and more than 95% below 1990 levels by 2050. Anything less than this will not be true to science, will not be true to the challenges we face, and will be an abdication of our responsibilities to future generations.
The eyes of the world are on us and our eyes are on you, AOSIS said to the Chair of the AWG-KP, John Ashe from Antigua and Barbuda. As Parties to the KP, we have responsibilities to the world. What we accomplish will be the true barometer of developed countries' willingness to address climate change.
It said that most Annex I Parties have shown commitment, but clearly an enormous gap exists. The pledges so far, if taken collectively, fall short of the figures mentioned in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report of 25-40% GHG emission reductions by 2020. It said developed countries can do more as this is technically and economically feasible. What is needed is the political will.
Millions are waiting expectantly for their government to act responsibly. We need unity. There is no time for delay, procrastination, cowardice or timidity. We are able to conclude, and we should do so. We must deliver an agreement on new and ambitious quantified emission reduction objectives. It is essential, or Copenhagen cannot be a success.
Lesotho speaking for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) reiterated that the KP is the only protocol in place that addresses GHG emission reductions. It said that any amendments to the KP should spell out ambitious commitments of Annex I Parties to emission reductions targets as required by science. The KP is of great importance to LDCs and can be enhanced if Parties engage in a second commitment period.
Without commitments and reduction targets, there would be no successful Copenhagen outcome, it stressed. The call to terminate the KP is unacceptable as it means the loss of a regime that addresses emission reductions.
It asked the Chair to steer the KP process away from the LCA process and to achieve a two-track outcome as mandated.
Australia speaking on behalf of the Umbrella group said that it is committed to bold action, a strong outcome, credibility and trust among citizens of the world. All its members are willing to commit to legally binding economy wide targets. The 2020 pledges are on the table, but the group needs clarity on rules including the carbon markets and Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). It said a post-2012 outcome depends on broad participation of all countries and that it prefers a single new legally binding treaty as the outcome.
[The Umbrella Group is a loose coalition of non-EU developed countries which formed following the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol. Although there is no formal list, the Group is usually made up of Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and the US. The Umbrella Group evolved from the JUSSCANNZ group, which was active during the Kyoto Protocol negotiations JUSSCANNZ is an acronym for Japan, the USA, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Norway and New Zealand: Sourced from UNFCCC Secretariat website http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/parties/negotiating_groups/items/2714.php]
Switzerland speaking on behalf of the Environmental Integrity Group (Mexico, Republic of Korea and Switzerland) said all Annex I Parties have to take the lead in achieving the 2 degree (temperature increase) objective. The members are ready to undertake emission reduction targets, some as much as 30%. The principles of the KP are to be continued, among others the quantified emission reductions objectives, the carbon market and flexibility mechanisms, the transparent monitoring system. The next step is to engage in ministerial negotiations to be sealed up by the heads of state.
It proposed that the negotiations should conclude by the end of the week. It invited the Chair to open from now on a continuous consultation and encouraged the group to conclude by Saturday (12 December). That would allow the ministerial text to be produced and be concluded. Starting from Saturday, it asked the Chair to invite consultations with ministers. Then the heads of state will conclude the negotiations and seal the deal. It said that we cannot miss this opportunity provided by COP 15 in which all countries can participate to address climate change.
Sweden speaking on behalf of the European Union said that we need a comprehensive and ambitious agreement. It must be more inclusive than the KP. It agreed that the KP is important and the EU will deliver its commitments under the KP. In 2007, the emission of the EU 15 (original members) was 5% below the 1990 levels. Most Annex I Parties have tabled a 2020 emission reduction target, but when added up, they are not sufficient. Collectively, Annex I Parties should cut emission by 30% below 1990 levels. The EU has already endorsed a 30% reduction provided other developed countries contribute in comparability and major developing economies also do their part.
It said the KP alone is not enough to achieve that target. The agreement from Copenhagen must be a universal, global and comprehensive legally binding agreement, based on the KP architecture, encompassing non-Kyoto Annex I Parties. The negotiations must make progress on KP substance, including clarity on LULUCF rules and flexibility mechanisms. We are here to save the climate and we cannot see a scenario from Copenhagen with a new binding agreement solely in the KP.
The Chair of the AWG-KP in his opening address said that the AWG-KP should not be distracted from its mandate which is to agree upon and forward the results of its work to CMP 5. The AWG-KP does not have a formal negotiating text. Thus it would be difficult to forward any results. This is a crucial issue and has to be resolved in order to come out with a tangible product by Wednesday next week. The Chair proposed to establish an additional contact group (the AWG-KP has been working in four contact groups: the contact group on further commitments of Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol known as the "numbers" group; the contact group on mechanisms, methodological issues and new gases known as "other issues"; the contact group on potential consequences, and the contact legal group which has hitherto not been working as it only meets if legal issues are raised by the other groups).
In his scenario note, the Chair foresees the need for the AWG-KP to come together in one group, to finalize the work and agree on how to forward the results to the CMP. The additional contact group is proposed to prepare the results of the work under the AWG-KP
TWN Update No. 4
Copenhagen News Update
8 December 2009
Published by the Third World Network
www.twnside.org.sg
Like it? Share it!
|
