TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Dec07/03)

5 December 2007


DEVELOPED COUNTRIES MUST FULFILL COMMITMENTS FOR 2008-2012

Please find below TWN Climate Briefings No. 3

Best Wishes
Sangeeta Shashikant
Third World Network
email: ssangeeta@myjaring.net
Visit www.twnside.org.sg for full series

---------------------------------------------------------------------

TWN CLIMATE BRIEFINGS FOR BALI #3

DEVELOPED COUNTRIES MUST FULFILL COMMITMENTS FOR 2008-2012

By Hira Jhamtani


There has been general assumption that the COP 13 of UNFCCC and MOP 3 of the Kyoto Protocol will launch the so called “Bali Road Map” that would be the basis for a “future framework” or known as the post- 2012 climate regime. Some reports also said that countries agree that talks on this “future framework” should be concluded by 2012.

This “future framework” apparently already has four “building blocks” i.e. mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer, and finance and investment, to which most countries have sort of agreed to. The only issue to be discussed seems to be the mechanism by which the building blocks will be delivered. This assumption is examined below.

“Future Framework” to avoid present commitments?

It is not clear how the notion started, but some developed countries and the UNFCCC secretariat often say the Bali meeting should provide a Roadmap towards a comprehensive multilateral framework beyond 2012; but at the same time they said the framework would be provided by the Kyoto Protocol and UNFCCC. The words “comprehensive multilateral framework” indicates there is a suggestion to negotiate a new protocol (perhaps even a new convention?) to combat climate change.

Some developing countries are now questioning the term “future framework”. The roadmap from Bali is supposedly to negotiate on the on the second period of commitment to reduce greenhouse gases by Annex 1 countries (under the UNFCCC), which is already mandated in the Kyoto Protocol. Developing countries are asking for deeper targets for emission cut by Annex 1 countries, and support must be provided for sustainable development in non Annex 1 countries through financial and technological assistance. They warned against the renegotiation of the Kyoto Protocol.

Indeed, the idea of a “future framework” seems to arise as an effort to replace the Kyoto protocol on the assumption that the US would never sign the Kyoto Protocol as it has said it will not do so. The only way to bring the US on board, so said some developed countries and the UNFCCC Secretariat, is to take the good elements of the Kyoto Protocol, add in more elements and renegotiate it under a new regime. The question is why should an entire protocol, which has been proven to be development friendly, be renamed or renegotiated at the whim of just one country?

There are two other reasons for the notion about “future framework”. First, it is being used to target some developing countries such as China, India, Brazil, South Africa etc to also have binding emission cut, under the guise of “the need to provide content to the term common but differentiated responsibilities”. Secondly, this is being used to shift public attention to the fact that developed countries have not fulfilled their commitments as yet under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, particularly in terms of technology transfer and adaptation fund, but also on emission cut.

The world needs to ask Annex 1 countries what commitments they are making for 2008 to 2012. The elaboration of present commitments by Annex 1 countries and how they will be implemented should be elaborated and should carry more weight (if not equal weight) as the post 2012 commitments.

How can future commitments be ensured when one has not seen the implementation of present commitments? Developing countries and the world should ask Annex 1 countries to create a roadmap for implementing their commitments in 2008-2012 as a priority. That would be the basis for the Bali Roadmap post 2012.

“The building blocks”

Many meetings prior to the COP13/MOP3 discussed the building blocks for the post 2012 regime viz: mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer, and finance. Again the media has reported these are the building blocks that countries have sort of agreed to as a foundation for the “future framework”. But countries have different interpretation on the building blocks.

Many countries say these are the minimum. Some developed countries want to have comprehensive building blocks that include among others: global long-term emission reduction; energy security levelling playing field for international competitiveness. There is also a demand by some forest rich developing countries to include forest and avoided deforestation as building blocks. Other developing countries are saying the issues are already addressed in the UNFCCC, but implementation have not been forthcoming.

So these are not actually building blocks but unfulfilled commitments. The priority of the day is to address how these commitments would be fulfilled between 2008-2012, before they are expanded or before new” building blocks are created.

Like the “future framework”, these building blocks are put forward in the attempt to shift the attention from the real issues of inability or unwillingness of developed countries so far to undertake their obligation under the UNFCCC. Also, these building blocks are offered as the “carrots” or bargaining chips to get developing countries (or some of them) to commit to emission cuts. This time, another carrot has been added, i.e. incentives regarding forest and deforestation.

UNFCCC or Not?

While discussing the post 2012 commitments, many developed countries (and the Secretariat) have continuously given assurance that future negotiations would be under the UNFCCC. But some developing countries feel there is a plan to negotiate a new agreement, or that the process towards the post 2012 regime would contain so many issues that it could change the Convention and may annul the Kyoto Protocol.

Some mechanisms have been suggested to formulate the post 2012 climate regime. First is through informal processes. Second is to create a negotiating process in a new body under the COP. These mechanisms are favoured by developed countries. Some developing countries have suggested that an ad hoc working group be formed as mandated by article 3.9 of the Kyoto Protocol, with a task to negotiate the second phase commitment of emission reduction by Annex 1 countries.

Two mechanisms exist at present to discuss future commitments i.e. Dialogue on long-term cooperative action to address climate change (the Dialogue) under the Convention and the Ad hoc Working Group or AWG (on future commitments of developed countries) under the Kyoto Protocol. Many developing countries say the AWG should continue its work in formulating the second phase commitment of emission cut by Annex 1 countries. Meanwhile there should be a mechanism to strengthen the implementation of the UNFCCC particularly with regards to technology transfer and adaptation.

Some developed countries have suggested that processes outside of the UNFCCC be linked to the processes within it. This seem to suggest processes such as the G8 + 5 meeting. Many developing countries are wary about this as they are not represented in these processes. Thus they are adamant that any process for the post 2012 commitment must remain under the UNFCCC.

So what we have is a situation in which developed countries are putting forward “new framework”, “new building blocks”, and even “new linkage of processes” to hide the fact that they have not fulfilled their commitments. There is no need for a new framework, but a renewed commitment to fulfill the obligations of developed countries for 2008-2012 and strengthened commitments for post 2012. There is no need for new building blocks – the blocks are all in place under the UNFCCC (with perhaps the need to add forest issues). And there is no need for a new process; the work can be distributed under the current processes and tied in together under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.

The so called Post Kyoto regime should not be a myth to hide the failure of developed countries to fulfill their commitments.

Hira Jhamtani is an expert on sustainable development issues, and a member of the Bali Collaboration on Climate Change.