Member Login
Syndicate
| Impasse over global climate architecture |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Meena Raman | |||
| Monday, 14 December 2009 00:00 | |||
|
At the stock taking meetings of the 15th session of the Conference of Parties (COP 15) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the fifth session of the Conference of Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties (CMP 5) to the Kyoto Protocol which met one after another on Saturday morning (12 December), developing countries were firmly opposed to what they saw as efforts by developed countries to "kill" the Kyoto Protocol through the creation of a new treaty that would replace it and impose new obligations on developing countries. At the COP meeting, Connie Hedegaard, the Danish Minister of Climate and Energy who is the COP 15 President, said that Parties were at the mid-point of the Conference and that the second week of the meeting is crucial. (Ministers have already started to arrive in Copenhagen and met with the COP President in informal consultations for all Parties on Saturday afternoon at the Bella Centre. On Sunday, another meeting with Ministers was held, but this time, it was not open to all Parties but to only to a select number of countries. A joint High-level segment meeting of the COP and CMP is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, 16 December). Michael Zammit Cutajar, the Chair of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) presented his report to the stock taking plenary. He said that work was going on in the different work streams of the Working Group, which aim to produce a text by Tuesday, 15 December. Most of the texts will be decisions in a package (on the different elements of the 2007 Bali Action Plan). To pull the package together, he had tabled a text to give shape to that package. One element that was conceptually and politically important was the shared vision, he said. It did not lend itself to decisions but is an inspiration for the whole to give more strength to the Convention in re-invigorating cooperation. On the legal nature of the outcome of the Conference, he said that there were many views, whether there would be one or two legal instruments, which was beyond the scope of one negotiating group (referring to the AWG-LCA and the AWG-KP). The AWG-LCA Chair's text assumes the adoption of a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol (KP) for Annex 1 Parties (developed countries) to make emissions reductions under the Protocol. Brazil, speaking for the G77 and China said that it was willing to work with the text of the Chair, although there were issues that needed to be addressed. It said that the structure of the text reflects the continuity of the KP and this was an essential outcome for the Group which must be ensured. Several developing countries also echoed the call of the G77 and China for the two-track process - for Annex 1 Parties to make emission reduction commitments under the KP for the second commitment period under the AWG-KP; and for a legally binding outcome under the AWG-LCA for enhanced implementation of the Bali Action Plan. They stressed the importance of the KP and for its sanctity to be preserved and for it to continue beyond 2012 when the first commitment period ends. The European Union and Japan in particular found the Chair's text unbalanced as regards mitigation and did not want a two-track outcome as they insisted on a single legally binding agreement. They felt that having a second commitment period under the KP alone was insufficient, as the KP did not cover the United States and developing countries. Sweden, speaking for the European Union, said that the Chair's text gave little certainty on how it will enable staying below 2 degree C and is not sufficient for emissions reductions. The text was not balanced as it had different requirements both for developed countries and developing countries. On one side, there are developed countries which are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, and on another side under the Convention are developed countries which are not legally bound as they are non-Parties to the KP (referring to the US) and loose frameworks for developing countries. Those who are under the KP account for only one-third of the global emissions, it said. A new binding agreement only under the KP is not acceptable and will not be an option for the EU. Hence, it wanted a new agreement that will build on the KP and take forward its essential elements. There must be common and transparent rules for measurement, reporting and verification (MRV). It must also encompass a robust compliance mechanism and new mechanisms. The EU said that it expects to conclude a political agreement to transform into a legally binding one. Japan said that it could support the concept of a packaged-deal but it had significant concerns over the current text. Its first concern was over the legal nature of the outcome, which it said prejudged the legal form for the "post-Kyoto" framework and assumes the continuation of the 2nd commitment period for Annex 1 Parties. It reiterated that a simple extension of the KP was not acceptable to Japan. Its second concern relates to the mitigation section of the current text which lacked balance. It did not provide a good basis for discussion. The mitigation section needed more important inputs. Its third concern related to the finance section as it would like a realistic discussion on how best to address the needs of developing countries. It wanted high-level informal consultations at the ministerial level to provide more clarity and focus on these issues. Australia said that in considering the Chair's text, it was encouraged by the areas of convergence. It said that it had serious concerns on the existing gulfs between Parties. Credible efforts from all Parties were needed in relation to mitigation which is solidified into a legally binding treaty. The issue of the legal architecture remains vexed. It wanted a legally binding outcome that requires a transparent system to keep track of progress in relation to mitigation. These issues required Ministerial action. Canada said that the text was yet to make sufficient progress on mitigation. The commitments of developed countries and the actions of the developing countries must be expressed in a legal form which must be inscribed and subject to international review, both for supported and unsupported actions. The United States said that the Chair's text inadequately reflects the contentious issues and there was need for informal consultations on how to manage this and this was a conversation for the ministerial process. It hoped that by Monday (14 December) there would be more clarity on how to move with operational effect. Similar sentiments were again expressed at the meeting of the CMP which followed the COP meeting. Ambassador John Ashe of Antigua and Barbuda, who is Chair of the AWG-KP presented his report to the stocktaking plenary. He said that he had prepared draft texts to capture the state of play of the negotiations in relation to the three contact groups on numbers (to deal with the targets for Annex 1 Parties in the second commitment period); other issues (relating to rules on land-use, land use change and forestry, the basket of gases etc. and the potential consequences of response measures. He said that the contact groups which had suspended their meetings on Friday will resume their work and use the text as the basis of work. Sudan, speaking for the G77 and China welcomed the Chair's efforts and expressed concern over the slow progress of work in the AWG-KP. It said that it was unacceptable for the developed country Parties to dismantle or kill the KP, which it said was the only legally binding instrument to effectively address the emissions of Annex 1 countries. It said that the Chair's text could serve as a good basis for the work of the AWG-KP and to complete its mandate for targets to be set for the second commitment period. The Group said that to reach a deal in Copenhagen, it was important to maintain the two-track process so as to have a strengthened KP, and an agreed outcome under the Convention track in the AWG-LCA for the full effective and sustained implementation of the Convention. Like it? Share it!
|
