Kyoto Protocol central to international response to climate change  - G77

As the following report on the statements made at the closing plenary of the AWG-KP in Bangkok reveals, developing countries were emphatic in their insistence on a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol.

Chee Yoke Ling and Hilary Chiew

ALGERIA, on behalf of the Group of 77 (G77) and China, said the group is engaging in constructive discussion on the translation of (emissions reduction) pledges to QELROs.  It stressed the legal option to avoid a gap between the first and second commitment periods, adding that the CP2 under the KP is crucial for the group.

Algeria said that CP2 must be ambitious and the 1 January 2013 commencement date should not be delayed. It considered the KP as central to the international response to climate change and that it is essential to deliver a strong and legally binding outcome in Doha that ensures no gap.  It emphasised that Annex I Parties should not use flexible mechanisms without making a commitment under the KP. It further urged those Parties which still have not put forward their QELROs to do so. It also said that those that have done so should consider how to improve on their QELRO ambition by Doha.

Swaziland, on behalf of the African Group, said the group came to Bangkok ready to engage in substantial discussions with the hope that they could produce a negotiating text for Doha. In this regard, the group submitted decision text on entry into force of amendments and transitional arrangements, and worked with partners to significantly improve and contribute to a proposal by developing countries on carry-over of surplus units.

Nevertheless, it said, the group remains deeply concerned about the slow progress witnessed in the KP discussions. It stressed that key for the group, as it has indicated repeatedly, is raising the level of ambition for Annex I Parties across the board, including Annex I Parties to the KP.  The group remains severely disappointed that there doesn't seem to be any movement further forward in this respect.

Swaziland said that some Parties told stories about their national circumstances and domestic laws as a way of trying to justify why they are leaving the KP, staying out of the second commitment period or not taking QELROs at all. It said the countries of the African Group which have been negotiating since 2005 all have national circumstances; their circumstances are that the effects of climate change, which they did not cause, continue to ravage their countries, adding to poverty, underdevelopment and death. These are far more urgent circumstances and they urge their partners in the Annex I countries to take this matter seriously.

Swaziland stressed further that the opportunity to avoid 2oC of warming - let alone a level of warming that keeps Africa safe - is closing. Failure by Annex I countries to raise ambition now in Doha, and delaying until a mid-term review or beyond, sends a worrying message and risks committing the world to a path of dangerous warming. At the same time, excessive use by the Annex I Parties of a limited atmospheric budget, valued by economists in the trillions of dollars, also denies it to non-Annex I Parties (developing countries), imposing new costs and limiting development. It undermines both their survival and their development. 

The African Group lamented the lack of leadership from Annex I Parties in tackling the problem of climate change and the current low pledges on the table. No amount of spinning will serve to convince that the current pledges are in line with what science and equity require, or that they meet the Convention's requirement that Annex I Parties make a contribution to achieving the objectives of the Convention that is 'equitable and appropriate'.

After seven years of negotiations, faced with unambiguous scientific information, and in a world with disasters rising daily, there can be no excuse, said Swaziland. It lamented the resistance to raising the level of ambition, and the intent by partners to lock their low levels of ambition into an eight-year commitment period. It condemned this as reckless disregard for human life. People in poor developing countries are also human beings, but the poor and the most vulnerable suffer, and will suffer more, from the effects of climate change, while many countries which have used the common atmospheric space to develop their economies for many decades continue to unashamedly pollute without any regard to lack of adaptive capacities in developing countries.

The African Group insisted that those who caused this problem of climate change take the lead in fixing it. It was perplexed by the elevation of economic competitiveness over and above the lives of the poor. Africa did not cause this problem, and Africa's contribution to this problem even now is still tiny. On the contrary, Africa stands ready to offer solutions and to play its part.

Swaziland went further to say that Doha must effect the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol by adopting amendments to Annex B of the Protocol with credible and legally binding cuts for the developed countries (QELROs). This is the minimum position for Africa. It must surely be a minimum position for the planet.

The Gambia, on behalf of the Least Developed Countries and AOSIS, expressed concern that the environmental integrity of the KP, which is the only legally binding treaty, is eroding before our eyes. It stressed that this will require actions in Doha that prioritise limiting emissions according to the latest science.

It said that Annex I Parties that had not submitted their economy-wide emissions reduction targets should do so, and that all Annex I Parties should raise the ambition, without conditions. The CP2 should be for a length of five years (not eight years, which would lock in insufficient emission reduction) and there must be a dramatic cut in surplus AAUs from the first commitment period. It added further that Annex I Parties must have QELROs inscribed in Annex B of the KP if they wish to particpate in the KP flexible mechanisms.  Annex I Parties not party to the KP must take on ambitious commitments under the AWG-LCA.

Slow progress

Saudi Arabia, speaking on behalf of the 22-member Arab Group, expressed concern over the slow progress of negotiations on the Protocol, and stressed the importance of agreement on a number of important outstanding issues which are of major concern for developing countries in general and Arab countries in particular.

Agreement on a CP2 of the Protocol is an essential requirement during the Doha conference, it said, calling for the CP2 to begin immediately with effect from 1 January 2013.

The group said it followed with interest the proposals put forward by a number of industrialised countries on emission reduction ambitions post-2012 to 2020. It is concerned about efforts by developed countries to make their mitigation contingent on mitigation action in developing countries. Industrialised countries have a historical responsibility to lead in cutting emissions. The group said it expects industrialised countries to demonstrate leadership in implementing reduction commitments required by the Protocol and to raise the level of ambition, taking into account the importance of the separation between the path of negotiation within the framework of the Protocol and any other negotiating tracks (referring to the working groups on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention and on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action).

It emphasised and reaffirmed the importance of reaching an agreement in Doha on a second commitment period that includes all its original Parties, and called on all Annex I Parties to accede to the second commitment period, stressing also that access to the Clean Development Mechanism should be conditioned by the operationalisation of the CP2 through its full ratification.

Dominica spoke on behalf of the ALBA grouping, which includes Bolivia, Dominica, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela. It said that the group came to support this process and to work together to reach a successful and balanced outcome. They knew this would not be easy, but felt it was not impossible.

It is deeply concerned that since Copenhagen (2009 meeting of Parties to the UNFCCC and the KP) there have been attempts to weaken the multilateral system through, for example, trying to develop a bottom-up approach based on voluntary pledges, which is not consistent with the urgency of addressing climate change, and the survival of the planet and humanity. The lack of political will is more and more evident in each Conference of the Parties, hence the need to act firmly in order to strengthen the multilateral framework required to address the impacts of climate change.

At this session in Bangkok, it said further, it had noticed with great dismay attempts made by some Parties to start considering the dilution of the legal character of the KP with even more flexibility provisions and 'options' that will further erode the strength of this legal instrument, taking note that not all Parties have put forward their QELROs as agreed in Durban. Meanwhile time is running out to produce the results that the planet needs, the adoption of the second and subsequent commitments of the Kyoto Protocol.

Dominica is also concerned that discussions on the KP are being also diverged to the Durban Platform. Cautioning against getting confused, it said the KP is not a mechanism but rather the only legal instrument to tackle the increasing amount of emissions from developed-country Parties, which have to assume their historical responsibility and leadership in contributing to combat climate change.

Dominica also recalled that the UN Conference on Sustainable Development held in Rio de Janeiro in June reaffirmed that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time and expressed profound alarm that greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise globally, affecting all, particularly developing countries. The conference also agreed to urge Parties to the UNFCCC and to the Kyoto Protocol to fully implement their commitments, as well as decisions adopted under those agreements. It also underscored that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation by all countries. That is why global action is required through global agreements under the Convention, based on the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and equity, to protect the planet for the benefit of present and future generations. It's time to act on these agreements, Dominica stressed.

The main commitment is the adoption of the CP2 of the Kyoto Protocol, as agreed in Durban, according to ALBA, and this is a crucial matter for developing countries as part of the balanced package of the Durban outcome. It must be ambitious in terms of the emission reductions, and begin immediately on 1 January 2013. The goals for emission reduction should be based on science and not on political or economic interests.

It added that it was paradoxical that the Bangkok session had been discussing ambition for the Durban Platform for a post-2020 agreement when there wasn't enough ambition for the only existing, rules-based, legally binding instrument to combat climate change.

It also said that only by undertaking legally binding commitments under the Kyoto Protocol should Annex I Parties be able to benefit from flexible mechanisms established under the Protocol. Moreover, it is probably time to develop a compliance regime particularly in relation to the compliance of Annex I and II Parties with their obligations under the Convention.

Iran, speaking for a group of developing countries (Algeria, Argentina, Bolivia, China, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, India, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Venezuela), reiterated that the Kyoto Protocol is the only legally binding, rules-based instrument with quantitative emissions reduction targets for Annex I Parties. It must be preserved.

The moment of truth has now been reached with respect to the Kyoto Protocol, it said further. The litmus test of the commitment of Annex I Parties to the Kyoto Protocol is now being applied - and they are found to be wanting. One Annex I Party to the KP has left it for good, several others want to keep it at arms' length, while still others have half-heartedly promised to recommit themselves to it. This is not a very promising state of affairs for the Kyoto Protocol. It is, in fact, an extremely sad state of affairs - one that bodes ill not only for the future of the current climate regime but, even more so, for the lives and prospects for better and more sustainable living conditions of billions of people.

Nevertheless, said Iran, the group of countries continue to believe that the Kyoto Protocol and its second commitment period remains a key component of the current international climate regime that can help move the  global community towards a more ambitious and equitable pathway for effectively and urgently addressing the risks, challenges and impacts of climate change. It would allow the reduction of a significant proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions to be kept as binding treaty commitments of Annex I Parties, even as efforts are made, through the work of the AWG-LCA and the ADP, to ensure the full, effective, and sustained implementation of the Convention and enhanced actions under it, in an ambitious and equitable manner.

The joint statement stressed that Doha must lay a firm foundation for further work under the Convention to address climate change in an ambitious and equitable manner. For the Kyoto Protocol negotiations to be successful, the following must be considered as the benchmarks: Annex I Parties to the KP must commit at Doha to ambitious QELROs to be provisionally applied as of 1 January 2013, with such QELROs putting them on a pathway to reducing their emissions to at least 40-50% below 1990 levels by 2020. This means that developed countries, as a whole, must keep their emissions by 2020 to below 9 gigatons from the more than 20 gigatons that they emit today.

However, their weak pledges, together with accounting loopholes, could result in emissions of well over 20 gigatons in 2020 by the developed countries - almost half of the global budget of 44 gigatons defined by the UN Environment Programme  (UNEP) to keep global warming under 2oC - for only one-seventh of the world's population, leaving the rest of the globe - 6 billion people, most of them poor - to survive and develop on the remaining half. This is clearly not ambitious and just as clearly not equitable.

Iran said that success in Doha requires three elements. First, an ambitious and legally binding second commitment period that includes a fair and science-based contribution by Annex I Parties towards closing the ambition gap. Second, an ambitious agreed outcome under the Bali Action Plan that includes comparable mitigation efforts by Annex I non-Kyoto Protocol Parties (the United States being the single most significant country) and clear commitments for finance for 2013 and through to 2020, as well as progress on other unfinished business from the Bali Action Plan. Third, greater clarity over the role and mandate of the working group under the Durban Platform, including the discussions on ambition and on negotiations towards a 2015 outcome to come into effect in 2020. In the absence of these elements, work under the current working groups (on the KP, and on long-term cooperative action under the UNFCCC dealing with the Bali Action Plan) must continue.

These outcomes must be carefully balanced, reflecting the careful balance struck in the Durban package. Working groups cannot be closed if they have not finished their work. Nor can there be acceptance in good conscience of unambitious outcomes that would place the world almost irrevocably on a path for warming that is dangerous.

In Durban, according to the group of countries, it was strongly proclaimed that Africa will not be the graveyard of the KP. Likewise in Doha, the KP will not be allowed to be buried in the sands of Asia.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo spoke on behalf of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations (32 out of the 52 countries of the Coalition endorsed the statement). It emphasised the need for the AWG-KP to finalise as soon as possible issues such as the translation of pledges to QELROs, carry-overs and legal options to avoid a gap between the first and the second commitment periods, so that the second commitment period can start smoothly on 1 January 2013. It added that the Kyoto Protocol regime is suffering from the lack of ambition and political commitment of Annex B Parties (developed countries and economies in transition) and once again strongly called for deeper greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments by those Parties.

It said that REDD+ can offer a significant contribution to the closure of the ambition gap provided that finance to support results-based actions based on a national MRV process is enhanced.

(REDD+ refers to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.)

Engaging in good faith

Nicaragua spoke on behalf of the Central American Integration System (SICA): Belize, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama. It expressed deep concern on the slow progress in the negotiations during the Bangkok session and called on Parties to intensify all efforts in accordance with the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities, to ensure the establishment of the CP2 of the Kyoto Protocol by 1 January 2013, as agreed in Durban.

It said further that the possibility of being unable to avoid any gaps before the ratification of the CP2 and to establish ambitious targets for reducing emissions, is very real and disturbing. Now, more than ever, it is urgent to engage in good faith in this negotiating process to increase emission reductions by countries with legally binding reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

Nicaragua wondered if the necessary confidence and compliance system will be developed regarding voluntary pledges in reaching the requirements that science is recommending. The SICA countries, despite being economies highly dependent on their natural resources and having no legally binding obligations, are continuing to make meaningful mitigation actions voluntarily, using their own scarce resources which are urgently needed in their struggle for poverty eradication and sustainable development. They are doing more than what they are obliged to, therefore the developed countries must comply with their obligations and provide the SICA countries with all the necessary means of implementation for financing and new adequate, predictable resources in addition to official development assistance.

Being also highly vulnerable to climate change, the SICA countries continue to face and suffer the consequences of the unwillingness of Annex I Parties to comply and commit to increasing their emission reduction targets, Nicaragua stressed.

Switzerland, speaking for the Environmental Integrity Group (Mexico, South Korea and Switzerland), considered the discussion in Bangkok to have been very useful and said that it allowed options for Doha to be streamlined. Though Parties did not reach a final decision, there was better understanding on the outstanding issues. There is a text that the Chair will prepare with all the elements to ensure a smooth transition to a CP2 and a successful conclusion of the work of the AWG-KP in Doha.

Australia, for the Umbrella Group (a loose coalition of non-European developed countries, among whom  Australia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Norway, Russia and Ukraine endorsed this statement), spoke about the need to ensure a smooth transition to the CP2 from 1 January 2013 and to ensure that the KP infrastructure and mechanism continue to deliver. It added that securing the smooth transition will ensure a flow of environmental and economic benefits to achieve the global goal (of emissions reduction). A strong KP will ensure a global carbon market.

It said that the group stands behind its pledges wherever they are inscribed; the KP played a part and with the CP2 covering a fraction of global emissions, it is not a solution for the future. It said that including the Durban Platform will make Durban a reality.

The European Union said it left Bonn with mixed feelings and Bangkok in a good mood. It set out the need for Doha to adopt a ratifiable amendment to the KP for a CP2; inscribe QELROs in Annex B; agree on an eight-year CP2, to be combined with a review process. It noted that the CP2 coverage is significantly less than the first commitment period, and expressed disappointment that some Parties are not ready to reconsider their position regarding participation in the CP2. It also said that to ensure the current insufficient level of ambition is not locked in, ambition will be increased by 2020 when there will be  a single legally binding commitment (referring to the Durban Platform outcome).

(Observers within the negotiations venue noted that the EU itself could do more but prefers to condition a higher ambition on increased commitments by developing countries through a new agreement. Meanwhile, outside the Bangkok meeting venue, protesters cried shame on the EU for its weak pledge/QELRO that, coupled with the KP flexible mechanisms and accounting loopholes, means that effectively there will be insignificant reduction within the EU itself for the CP2.)            

*Third World Resurgence No. 264/265, August/September 2012, pp 19-22