Bonn, 1 June 2009.
Climate negotiations kick off in Bonn from 1-12 June under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It is set to be intense and highly contentious as Parties chart the outcomes for the Conference of Parties in December this year.
The primary focus of Parties will be the negotiations under the two processes of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWGLCA) and the Ad-hoc Working Group under the Kyoto Protocol (AWGKP).
Both these processes have distinctly different mandates. The work of the AWGLCA is to implement the Bali Action Plan as was agreed to in 2007, in order to enable the full effective and sustained implementation of the UNFCCC through long term cooperative action now, up to and beyond 2012. On the other hand, the mandate of the AWGKP is to conclude negotiations on the second commitment period for the developed country Parties (Annex 1 Parties) to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) starting from 2013, following the expiry of their first commitment period from 2008 to 2012 under the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol is a legally binding agreement under the UNFCCC that sets the target for the reduction of GHG emissions by Annex 1 Parties. The work of the AWG-KP is scehduled to be completed in 2009.
Parties have a deadline of 17 June under the AWGKP to produce a text on emissions reductions for Annex 1 Parties for the next commitment period.
Negotiation texts have been produced for consideration of Parties under the two processes.
In addition to the meetings of the AWGLCA and the AWGKP, the 30th session of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the 30th session of the Subisdiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) will also take place in Bonn from 1-10 June.
Following are some highlights from the texts in the AWGLCA and AWGKP and the related processes involved.
Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWGLCA)
The AWGLCA at its previous fourth session, invited the Chair, Mr. Michael Zammit Cutajar of Malta, to prepare under his own responsibility a negotiating text for the consideration of Parties at its current session, building upon the ideas and proposals of Parties. The Chair was further requested to take into account the proceedings of the previous session and of further submissions received from Parties by 24 April 2009.
The Chair's document however states that the negotiating text takes account of ideas and proposals contained in the most recent submissions from Parties which were received up to 5th May 2009. It is interesting to note that the United States submission was provided to the UNFCCC secretariat only on the 4 May, while most of the other Parties provided their submissions between 24 and 25 April, while the European Union made its submission on 28April.
In the scenario note prepared by the Chair, the first reading of the negotiating text will take place in an informal plenary setting on 1 June. Subsequently, the AWGLCA will be invited to continue the first reading of the text in the mornings, and to devote the afternoons to detailed work on specific elements of the Bali Action Plan.
The Chair also noted that Parties have continued to make submissions after 5 May and several have indicated their intention to bring forward additional proposals. The scenario note states that all available submissions will be considered in conjunction with the first reading of the negotiating text and the drafting work during the current session.
The negotiating text is contained in 46 pages and is structured under the following headings – a shared vision for long-term cooperative action; enhanced action on adaptation; enhanced action on mitigation; enhanced action on financing, technology and capacity-building.
Of the 17 paragraphs related to the shared vision, 9 paragraphs deal with an introductory statement on a shared vision, with 7 paragraphs dedicated to the issue of the long-term global goal for emission reductions. The document notes that a text integrating goals on adaptation, mitigation, technology and financing in the shared vision could be prepared at a later stage. It notes that Parties have expressed the view that a statement on shared vision for long-term cooperative action should express their political resolve to achieve their goals for enhanced action on adaptation, mitigation, technology and financing and that the integration of these interrelated goals in a shared vision statement will result in due time from the pursuit of negotiations on these building blocks of the Bali Action Plan, thus deferring this aspect to a later stage. (Developing countries have per! sistently insisted on the integration of these goals into the shared vision.)
On the contrary, there is much emphasis on the long-term global goal for emissions reductions. The Chair's document notes that the 7 paragraphs on this aspect are an exception to the deferral of other issues. It also states that these proposals include references to the medium-term goals, peaks and pathways considered necessary to achieve a long-term global goal, as well as to review processes and that the placement of such material in a statement on shared vision (i.e. whether it should be a distinct element or integrated in the statement of mitigation goals), remains to be considered. (It is the developed country Parties, especially the EU, who have placed much emphasis on the long-term global goal for emission reductions that would ultimately require developing countries to take on residual commitments to reduce emissions.)
The Chair has elevated heavily contested aspects of mitigation efforts to the shared vision. In particular, under paragraph 15, the negotiating text states that “Supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building from developed country Parties, the GHG emissions of (developing country Parties)...as a group (shall)...(a) significantly deviate from the baseline by 2020” or “Deviate in the order of 15-30% below baseline by 2020;” (b) “And be reduced by 25% from 2000 levels by 2050”. This issue of the “deviation from baseline” for developing countries was intensely contested by developing countries in the last meeting in Bonn in March 2009, and the assumptions for such deviation were fundamentally challenged. Yet, this appears high up in the shared vision that is the first part of the text.
In relation to the setting of the long-term global goal for emissions reductions, the Chair provides 5 options. Option 1 relates to a stabilisation of GHG concentrations at a certain level (400 or 450 or lower ppm CO2 equivalent and a temperature increase limited to 2 degree C above pre-industrial level. For this purpose, Parties shall/should collectively reduce global emissions by at least 50% (from 1990 levels which is bracketted) by 2050.
Option 2 relates to a stabilisation of GHG concentrations well below 350 ppm CO2 equivalent and a temperature increase limited to below 1.5 degree C above the pre-industrial level. For this purpose Parties are shall/should collectively reduce global emissions by (81-71) (more than 85) per cent from 1990 levels by 2050. The brackets indicate optional figures.
Option 3 relates to a global temperature increase limited to 2 degree C above pre-industrial level; Option 4 as a reduction in global average GHG emissions per capita to about 2 tonnes CO2.
Option 5 is presented as one option with 4 further sub-options i.e. the long-term global goal is set on the basis of (1) historical responsibility; (2) emissions debt; (3) per capita accumulative emission convergence; (4) an equitable allocation of the global atmospheric resources. These are proposals from several developing countries which are all collapsed into one option. This is not a balanced treatment of the proposals when they ought to be considered separately and individually.
On the issue of mitigation, in relation to mitigation commitments of developed countries, proposals that go beyond the remit of the Bali Action Plan and the Convention have been included. One example is that in paragraph 55, which provides various options for classification of developed countries in new ways to include “countries that are not OECD members but whose economic development stages are equivalent to those of the OECD members…”
Another is that of paragraph 58 which states that “Suitable criteria, agreeable to every Party, should be used in defining “developed country Parties. There should be a dynamic continuum with different commitments, actions and support for different countries based on common, objective criteria.”. These paragraphs envisage a review of what are 'developed' and 'developing' countries. Such proposals extend beyond the mandate of the Bali Action Plan, which is about enhancing the implementation of the Convention.
Further, in relation to nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) by developing country Parties, the text contains proposals that allow for the differentiation of developing countries. For instance, option 2 of paragraph 74 states that “The NAMAs by developing country Parties should/shall be different for different groups of countries, depending on the level of development of their economies, (particularly of LDCs and SIDs), and on their respective capacities and specific national circumstances, including limited opportunities that may be available for using alternative energy sources”. The Bali Action Plan and the Convention do not provide a basis for differentiating developing countries. The concept of “nationally appropriate” adequately captures that different countries will determine what is nationally appropriate for their own circumst! ances. This provides yet another example of matters that are extraneous to the implementation to the Bali Action Plan and the Convention being entertained in the negotiating text.
It is pertinent to note that India, in the previous session of the AWGLCA, asked the Chair to ensure that the negotiating text is in full accordance with the mandate of the Bali Action Plan and that it seeks to enhance the implementation of the Convention and that it does not take on board issues outside this precise and carefully negotiated mandate. India had also asked the Chair to mention in his negotiating text, particularly in each of the operative paragraphs, those Article or Articles in the Convention whose implementation a particular paragraph proposes to enhance. Acording to India, linking of all operative paragraphs of the text to specific Article or Articles of the Convention of which the implementation is to be enhanced, would be extremely useful and would help the Parties in their endeavour to reach an agreed outcome in Copenhagen.
This has not been done in the Chair's text and only Articles that have been referred to by Parties in their submissions have been referenced as footnotes.
Hence, some issues outside the precise mandate of the Bali Action Plan have found their way into the Chair's text.
This will indeed be a matter of critical importance in the negotiations this week.
In relation to the issue of finance and technology, the structure of the text has collapsed the two separate building blocks of enhancing action on financial resources and on technology in the Bali Action Plan into one chapter, together with capacity-building. These are issues that are very critical to the developing countries, and a more balanced treatment of finance and technology in separate chapters would have been helpful and would have been consistent with the elements and building-blocks of the Bali Action Plan.
In response to a request made by some Parties during the previous session of the AWGLCA, the Chair has organised a technical briefing to enable Parties to receive information and share views on the concept of historical responsibility as a guide to future action to address climate change. This event will take place on Thursday, 4 June.
Ad-hoc Working Group under the Kyoto Protocol (AWGKP)
The Chair of the AWGKP, Ambassador John Ashe from Antigua and Barbuda, has prepared a proposal for amendments to the Kyoto Protocol pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 9, which provides for the establishment of quantified emission limitation or reduction commitments for subsequent periods for developed country Parties, following the expiry of the first commitment period. The quantified emission limitation or reduction amounts during the first commitment period are presented in Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol. In relation to commitments for the subsequent periods, amendments to Annex B are are required, as are consequential amendments that flow directly from amendments to Annex B.
There is a legal requirement under Article 20, paragraph 2 of the Protocol that the text of any proposed amendment (in this case of Annex B and the consequential amendments), shall be communicated to Parties by the secretariat 6 months before the meeting at which it is proposed for adoption (which is the meeting of the COP in December 2009). Consequently, the note of the Chair states that arrangements will need to be made to communicate by 17 June, the text of the proposed amendments.
Hence, there is an urgency for Parties in Bonn to reach agreement on the scale of emission reductions to be achieved by Annex 1 Parties in aggregate and the contribution of Annex 1 Parties, individually or jointly to that scale.
The Chair in preparing the proposal for amendments to Annex B, has presented a text for the consideration of Parties which he notes, are based on the textual proposals by Parties in their submissions, work undertaken and submissions invited during the previous session (7th session) of the AWGKP, and views submitted by Parties on legal implications arising from the work of the AWGKP, pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 9.
The Chair's text is contained in an annex and presents various options for the consideration of Parties. According to the note of the Chair, where feasible, the Chair has merged several textual proposals submitted by Parties or arising from the work undertaken during the previous session into single options with elements in square brackets reflecting the different formulations presented in those proposals. In the options for an amendment to Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol, the Chair has included in the table non-Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, either because the countries concerned have explicitly requested this or their names are included in the textual proposals presented by Parties.
The annex containing the proposed amendments to Annex B contains 5 options for Parties to consider with a further 3 options proposing a new Annex C.
On Annex B, the first option relates to the replacement of the table in Annex B with a new table, that lists the Annex 1 Parties as well as the United States and Turkey who have not yet ratified the Kyoto Protocol. The table provides two columns – one listing the quantified emission limitation or reduction commitment for the period 2008-2012 (the first commitment period) and the second column of the quantified amounts for the period 2013-2017, or 2013-2018, or 2013-2020 or 2013 to a year in which the second commitment period ends. The amounts for the second commitment period are not indicated in the table.
The second option replaces the existing table in Annex B with a new table that lists the Annex 1 Parties, but has 5 columns which indicates the quantified emission limitation or reduction commitment for the first commitment period; a column left blank for the second commitment period being 2013-2017 or 2013-2020; a column left blank for per capita emissions for the period 2013-2017 or 2013 -2020 and a final column which is left blank that provides for the subsequent period after the second commitment period for the years 2018-2022 or 2020-2027.
The third option replaces the existing table in Annex B with a new table that lists the Annex 1 Parties but has 3 columns – the first indicating the quantified emission limitation or reduction commitment for the first commitment period; a column left blank for the second commitment period being 2013-2016 for the quantified emission reduction (not limitation) and the third column for the period 2018-2022 for the same.
The fourth option replaces the existing table in Annex B with a listing of the Annex 1 Parties as in the previous options above but has 5 columns to reflect the quantified emission limitation or reduction commitment for the second commitment period which begins on 2013 and ends at a time to be dertermined. The columns then are to indicate the assigned amounts of emissions; the reduction rates from 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2007 indicating varying baseline years.
The fifth option replaces Annex B with a new table with the listing of Annex 1 Parties as in the previous options. It has 3 columns indicating the quantified emission limitation or reduction commitment in the first commitment period; followed by quantified emisison reduction commitment amounts for the period 2013-2017 and 2018-2022, with two sets of proposed figures for each country listed in square brackets. The numbers in the square brackets in each instance represent two sets of figures from the Philippines and from South Africa.
The sixth option relates to a proposal by Bangladesh to include a new Annex C to the Protocol for the third commitment period. Annex C would be additional to Annex B and the new annex would be inserted at an appropriate time in accordance with the consequential amendment of Article 3, paragraph 9. It also provides that Parties not included in Annex 1 (developing countries), depending on their national circumstances and capabilities and supported by financial resources and technology transfer, shall take appropriate actions for quantified emission reductions in the third commitment period which is proposed to begin in 2019.
The seventh option also relates to a new Annex C that is to follow Annex B as proposed by New Zealand, as a further option for presenting Parties' commitments in the second commitment period. The Annex C would be additional to Annex B, which would continue to exist for ongoing reference and use for end of the commitment period accounting and compliance procedures. This new annex would contain not only new quantified emission limitation or reduction commitments, which would be expressed as a percentage of base year emissions and in terms of gigagrams of carbon dioxide equivalent, but also other quantified mitigation commitments. The Chair's note to the text states that the adoption of an Annex C would result in consequential amendments, and since it arises from a proposal to add a new annex, they are not reflected in the proposed negotiating text on Article 3, paragraph 9,! as they do not flow directly from an amendment to Annex B.
The eight option is a proposal from Tuvalu for an new annex C to follow Annex B that could be added to include commitments not only for Annex 1 Parties for the second commitment period but also for non-Annex 1 Parties that have elected to take up commitments in the second comittment period. In this instance, Annex B would not be amended and commitments for the second commitment period would be reflected in Annex C. The Chair's text notes that the adoption of an Annex C would result in consequential amendments that are not reflected in the text since they do not flow directly from an amendment to Annex B.
On the scale of emission reductions in aggregate by Annex 1 Parties, the Chair's text includes the following proposed options :
(1) at least 40% below 1990 levels in the second commitment period 2013-2018; or at least 30,40 or 45% below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2013-2020 or by 2020;
(2) an amount that does not exceed their assigned amounts, calculated with a view to reducing overall emissions by an amount greater than X per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2013-2017 that has been determined on the basis of the following criteria in order to ensure consistency with the ultimate objective of the Convention and the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities -
(a) Historical responsibility of Annex I Parties, individually and jointly, for current atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases; (b) The historical and current per capita emissions in developed countries; (c) Technological, financial and institutional capacities; (d) The share of global emissions required by developing countries in order to meet their social and development needs.
(3) at least 18, 20 or 30% below 1990 levels for the second commitment period 2013-2017 and at least 40,45 or more than 50% below 1990 levels in the third commitment period 2018-2022 or at least 45% below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2013-2020 and at least 56% below 1990 levels by 2027.
(4) at least 85% or more than or at least 95% below 1990 levels by the end of 2050.
Clearly, the AWGKP negotiations will prove to be most intense, difficult and critical. It is important that Parties reach an agreement in Bonn on the scale of emission reductions to be achieved by Annex 1 Parties in aggregate and the contribution of Annex 1 Parties, individually or jointly to that scale.
