|
Japan
rejects Kyoto
Protocol and calls for new Copenhagen-based accord
The shock announcement by Japan
at Cancun that it was not prepared
to negotiate further greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments under
the Kyoto Protocol may in effect have sounded the death knell of the
Protocol, says Lim Li Lin.
AT the opening of the Kyoto
Protocol Working Group on 29 November, Japan shocked participants of the Cancun climate talks by stressing that it would never accept
a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and that it would never
agree to place its greenhouse gas emission reduction target under the
Protocol.
Some delegates and observers
felt this was a significant moment equivalent to the sounding of the
death knell of the Protocol named after a city in Japan
in which the Protocol's negotiations had been concluded.
The working group has been
negotiating the further greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments
of the Annex I members of the Kyoto Protocol in a second commitment
period which was scheduled to begin in 2013 after the present first
period expires at the end of 2012. Developing countries consider progress
in this group to be a litmus test of developed countries' mitigation
commitment.
The group, whose official name
is the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties
under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), opened its 15th session on 29 November,
at the UN climate change conference in Cancun.
The working group's legal mandate is to determine the emission reduction
commitments of Annex I (developed countries) Parties for a second commitment
period after 2012, when the first commitment period expires.
Japan
said that climate change is a global issue that needs global solutions.
It acknowledged the historical role of the Kyoto Protocol, but said
that the situation is changing rapidly, and that setting emission caps
on a small part of global emissions can never be effective. The pledges
under the Copenhagen Accord cover 85% of global emissions, and as such
are the point of departure, it said.
It called for a new, single
legally binding instrument with all major emitters based on the Copenhagen
Accord. In Cancun, it said, there should be a balanced package of COP
[Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC)] decisions, respecting the balance in the Copenhagen
Accord, and marking a milestone of progress in the AWG-LCA (Ad Hoc Working
Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention). It said
that emission reduction numbers can only be addressed in the AWG-LCA
(where negotiations for enhanced implementation of the UNFCCC are taking
place).
(The controversial Copenhagen
Accord was 'taken note' of by the COP in 2009 after being rejected by
a number of developing countries.)
Japan
said that its 2020 target is under the Copenhagen Accord, and that it
will not inscribe its target in the Kyoto Protocol under any circumstance,
or under any condition. It said that it will never accept any CMP (Meeting
of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol) decision implying a second commitment
period or provisional extension of the first commitment period as this
would prejudge the legal outcome.
It said that it supported the
establishment of the 'Copenhagen green fund', provided that there
is progress in the discussions on MRV (measuring, reporting and verification)
and mitigation by developing countries.
Support for second commitment
period
In stark contrast to Japan's
statement, the developing countries unanimously called for the second
commitment period for Annex I Parties' emission reductions under the
Kyoto Protocol, insisting that this is a legally binding obligation
and had to be adopted in Cancun.
Among other developed countries,
Norway
expressed support for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol,
and the European Union said that it was willing to consider having a
second period.
The Chair of the AWG-KP, Ambassador
John Ashe from Antigua and Barbuda, had issued a scenario note prior
to the start of the session that indicated that he would make a proposal
'on all aspects of the work of the AWG-KP in the form of a draft decision,
aimed at substantially advancing the work of the group'. He also proposed
to establish a single contact group covering all aspects of work of
the AWG-KP.
Yemen,
speaking for the developing-country Group of 77 (G77) and China, said that it looked to the
AWG-KP to fulfil its mandate, and adopt conclusions on the aggregate
and individual emission reduction targets for Annex I Parties for the
second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. It said that Annex I
Parties must fulfil their legal obligations, and show the necessary
will and leadership. The second commitment period must have truly ambitious
quantified emission reduction commitments for developed countries.
It stressed the importance
of the continuity of the Kyoto Protocol and the need to avoid a gap
between the commitment periods, as any gap would have serious implications
for markets, the climate system and Mother Earth.
Yemen
said that new quantified reductions were a cornerstone of the Cancun
outcome, which the Group insisted upon and would not compromise on.
Failure to adopt a second commitment period would send a negative signal
from Annex I Parties, and the AWG-KP must deliver results for adoption
by the CMP at this session, it said.
The Democratic Republic of
Congo, speaking for the Africa Group, said that agreement on the second
commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol is absolutely essential to facilitating
agreement in the AWG-LCA for non-Kyoto Parties which is comparable in
terms of ambition, accounting and compliance rules. (The US is
the only Annex I Party of the Convention that is not a Party to the
Protocol.)
It said that the Group's expectations
for Cancun were the adoption of the
amendment to the Kyoto Protocol for the second commitment period, and
the strengthening of emission reduction commitments in accordance with
science. It stressed the importance of the two-track approach, and that
reaching agreement on the second commitment period is essential to agreement
in the AWG-LCA.
Grenada,
speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), said there
must be agreement on ambitious, transparent and comparable emission
reductions for Annex I Parties through amending Annex B of the Kyoto
Protocol. It supported the two-track approach, and a legally binding
ratifiable instrument under the AWG-LCA. It said that there should be
no gap between the commitment periods, and that the outcome of the AWG-KP
should be adopted in Cancun to leave time for ratification of the amendment.
It said that any further delay
would cast doubts on the sincerity of Annex I Parties, who have the
moral responsibility to reduce their emissions. Cancun must adopt the amendment for the second commitment
period from 2013-2017 with a single legally binding base year of 1990.
It stressed closing loopholes
in LULUCF (Land-use, Land-use Change and Forestry) accounting, addressing
surplus AAUs (Assigned Amount Units), including new gases and improving
the mechanisms. It referred to a recently released report by the UN
Environment Programme that showed that emission reduction pledges so
far fall far short of a 2 degree Celsius pathway, much less a 1.5 degree
Celsius pathway, but that it is feasible to bridge this gap through
more ambitious domestic actions, and closing the loopholes related to
LULUCF and surplus AAUs.
Lesotho,
speaking for the least developed countries (LDCs), said that the entry
into force of the Kyoto Protocol amendment for the second commitment
period should be given the utmost attention so that there is no gap
between the commitment periods.
It said that Cancun
should be the stepping stone towards the legally binding agreement in
2011, and that Annex I Parties must meet their commitments under the
Kyoto Protocol. It referred to a 2010 UNCTAD (UN Conference on Trade
and Development) report on LDCs that said that for every degree of temperature
increase, annual average growth in poor countries will drop by 2-3%.
It stressed on improved access to Clean Development Mechanism projects
for LDCs.
Cornerstone
Bolivia,
speaking for the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America
(ALBA), said that the cornerstone of Cancun
was the adoption of the second commitment period with ambitious and
domestic reductions for Annex I countries. It said that laws must be
complied with, not negotiated. Article 3.9 of the Kyoto Protocol requires
an amendment to Annex B for the second commitment period, and there
is no doubt about the legal mandate.
It said that it was unacceptable
that Annex I countries continue to try to shirk their obligations, and
have increased their emissions by 12.8% while seeking to impose new
conditions and greater flexibility for themselves. There should be an
aggregate target for domestic emission reductions.
It expressed concern over the
Chair's scenario note which proposed dealing with all matters as if
they had the same legal standing. The work on Annex I emission reductions
in the second commitment period could not be diluted with the other
technical issues. As such, it said that it could not agree to work within
a single contact group.
Papua
New Guinea said that as 2012 approaches,
there is increasing uncertainty around a possible gap between the two
commitment periods, which is leading to a decrease in participation
in the Kyoto Protocol's mechanisms. It said that it would present a
proposal that would be a political resolution that would give continuity
to the Kyoto Protocol's flexible mechanisms, and encourage the private
sector.
Belgium,
speaking for the European Union (EU), said that it was committed to
making progress in both negotiating tracks as a constructive step toward
a global, binding and comprehensive framework.
Its position is that developed
countries' aggregate emission reductions should be 30% below 1990 levels
by 2020, in an international agreement where other developed countries
make comparable emission reductions, and advanced developing countries
contribute adequately according to their responsibilities and respective
capabilities. The Cancun outcome in
the AWG-KP should clarify proposed emission reduction objectives, and
inscribe them in the AWG-KP process.
It said that the EU's heads
of state and government prefer a single legally binding instrument,
but are willing to consider a second commitment period of the Kyoto
Protocol as part of a global outcome including all major economies.
It stressed the importance of LULUCF accounting rules, the continued
use of the flexible mechanisms and their improvement, new market mechanisms,
addressing surplus AAUs, new gases and confirming the Kyoto Protocol's
institutions.
Belgium
said that it looked forward to the Chair's proposal for one decision
that addressed all the issues under the AWG-KP in a balanced manner.
The package in Cancun should preserve
the institutional architecture of the Kyoto Protocol, stepping up ambition
for Annex I Parties. Annex I emission reductions in the Kyoto Protocol
alone are not enough, and there should be progress towards a legally
binding outcome and balance in both negotiating tracks (the other being
the AWG-LCA) with broad participation, it said.
Australia, speaking for the
Umbrella Group (which also includes the US, Japan and Canada among others),
said that it was committed to a balanced, fair, effective and comprehensive
global deal, and that discussions under the Kyoto Protocol take place
in this context. Progress made on these discussions including the markets,
and also mitigation by all major emitters is necessary.
It said there is a need to
ensure that discussions under the AWG-KP take into account the AWG-LCA,
as they are directly relevant. All Umbrella Group countries intend to
take on emission reduction commitments under a 'comprehensive climate
change framework beyond the expiry of the first commitment period'.
These pledges, reflected under the Copenhagen Accord, are the most substantial
emission reductions ever put forward, it said.
Liechtenstein, speaking for
the Environmental Integrity Group (which also includes Switzerland and
Korea among others), said that there should be clarification and agreement
on transformation of pledges into QELROs (quantified emission limitation
and reduction objectives), LULUCF accounting rules, agreement on the
flexible mechanisms, the basket of gases and the length of the second
commitment period, as part of the balanced outcome in Cancun.
It also stressed addressing
the carry-over of surplus AAUs. It supported the Chair's scenario note,
and a comprehensive and balanced package of decisions in Cancun, 'containing
elements of a future comprehensive climate regime having in mind the
importance of the contribution of the second commitment period under
the Kyoto Protocol'. It stressed the need for inter-relation between
the AWG-KP and the AWG-LCA.
Norway
said that it is prepared to move into the second commitment period of
the Kyoto Protocol as part of a balanced outcome that includes major
emitters. It said that there should be balance between the two negotiating
tracks, and that there should be outcomes from both tracks. It supported
a single contact group, and finalising rules for LULUCF and other issues.
It said that it would reduce its emissions by 40% by 2020 on 1990 levels
as part of a global and comprehensive agreement.
Saudi
Arabia stressed the legal mandate of the AWG-KP
in Article 3.9, and said that the second commitment period must be adopted
in Cancun to avoid a gap between the
two commitment periods. It also stressed the importance of potential
consequences, including spillover effects of response measures, and
urged for a decision on this with an effective programme of work.
Mexico
restated its explicit support for the Kyoto Protocol, and supported
the Chair's proposed text. It said it is important to send a clear signal
that the Kyoto Protocol regime and its mechanisms will continue. There
should be agreement on the numbers and rules, and this should be approached
in a comprehensive manner, as they go hand in hand.
Tuvalu stressed the need to
eliminate the LULUCF accounting loophole, and said that it would present
a proposal that would allow issues that lacked maturity to be passed
on to the second commitment period. It cautioned against a process decision
that leads down endless discussions, creating more loopholes.
Chair's proposal
The Chair of the AWG-KP informed
the group that he had prepared a proposal based on his previous proposal
to facilitate preparations for negotiations (document 17), that covered
all aspects of work in order to reach a balanced outcome.
He said that the work of the
AWG-KP should be focused on the scale of emission reductions, and that
the Mexican presidency would assist in achieving outcomes in both negotiating
tracks by undertaking consultations on emission reduction numbers. The
AWG-KP would also meet to discuss LULUCF, emissions trading and the
project-based mechanisms, methodological issues and response measures,
he said.
The Chair proposed that the
AWG-KP meet in a single contact group, and this was agreed to after
initial reservations from Bolivia,
Saudi Arabia and
Cuba.
His intention was to ensure that the text he had prepared would serve
as the basis for discussions at this session.
The contact group then began
its meeting immediately after the closing of the working group's meeting.
Lim Li Lin is a researcher
with the Third World Network. This
article is reproduced from the South-North Development Monitor (SUNS,
No. 7052, 2 December 2010), which is published by TWN.
|
The flaws in Japan's
position
Japan's
argument for discarding the Kyoto Protocol is wrong on the numbers
and on equity, Stockholm Environment Institute senior scientist
Dr Sivan Kartha explains.
JAPAN
has stated, in no uncertain terms, that it is willing to let the
Kyoto Protocol die. It is claiming that the Kyoto Protocol is
an outdated instrument, because its targets do not cover the United
States or any developing countries.
Since it fails to cover three-quarters of global carbon emissions,
Japan argues, the Kyoto Protocol cannot
be a viable basis for solving the climate problem.
Japan's
argument is doubly flawed. First, it neglects the fact that while
the United States
is not a Party to the Kyoto Protocol, it is a Party to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and did
in fact agree under the Bali Action Plan to negotiate an emissions
limit comparable to other developed countries' Kyoto
targets.
Thus, with all Annex
I countries coming under quantified emission limits, the fraction
of global carbon emissions covered by the Bali
process would be actually closer to one-half.
Missing the point
of Annex I
But more fundamentally,
the Japanese argument confuses emissions with obligations. Annex
I was never intended to be a grouping of countries with the highest
emissions, but rather those with the greatest moral obligation
to address the climate problem. The UNFCCC is unequivocal in this
regard:
'The Parties should protect
the climate on the basis of equity and in accordance with their
common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.
Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead
in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.'
If we talk of developed
countries' responsibility for the climate problem, then surely
we must consider not just their direct emissions, but also emissions
in developing countries that arise from activities that produce
goods for consumption in developed countries. Under a 'consumption-based'
accounting of emissions, developed countries are responsible for
around 60% of global emissions.
Furthermore, climate
change is caused not just by today's carbon emissions, but by
carbon accumulated in the atmosphere due to years of emissions.
If you gauge emissions on a historical basis, developed countries
are responsible for more than 75%.
If we talk of countries'
capability with respect to solving the climate problem, it is
clear that the great majority of financial and technological wherewithal
resides in the North. The developed world controls approximately
three-quarters of the world's GDP. If one takes into account that
a much higher fraction of GDP goes toward meeting very basic needs,
such as food, shelter, and medical care, then the North controls
more like six-sevenths of the world's discretionary GDP.
It is precisely because
Annex I is intended to reflect obligation, not merely emissions,
that the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol commit them not only to
undertake domestic reduction targets, but to provide international
support as well, through finance and technology, to enable all
countries to curb their emissions.
The UNFCCC, with its
Kyoto Protocol, if implemented earnestly, completely and in good
faith, does provide an equitable and effective way of reducing
emissions in all countries, and taking important steps toward
solving the climate problem.
|
*Third World Resurgence No. 244, December
2010, pp 20-23
|
