Durban: Day 13: Time Running Out
Also, the Kyoto Protocol text hasn’t changed since last night – apparently it’s held until the LCA track is discussed, and conditions seem to be introduced that condition further ambition on developments in the LCA.
The basic elements of a deal are coming closer together, which include:
- A second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, to run from 2013-2017; this will be a two step-process with rules adopted now and pledges proposed in May 2012 and finalized in Doha, Quatar next December.
- A "mandate" to negotiate a new "legally binding instrument,” to be completed by 2015.
- Decisions to start the Green Climate Fund, the technology mechanism, the adaptation mechanism, and portions of the financial incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation (REDD), however actual funding pledges are unclear.
Some impressions from this version:
Legal Form and Mandate – This text is silent on the mandate and timeline for further negotiation, which are being held in the Indaba process. Indaba is a Zulu word, meaning a sort of “meeting of the elders,” and it’s been the forum for group consultations at the Ministerial level. The divergent politics on which countries can agree to a mandate or road map that is or isn’t legally binding has the potential to stall the structural and programmatic progress that appears to have been made in the other areas. Energy & Environment is reporting that the United States, India, and China are objecting to the stated goal of a binding agreement, but for different reasons. According to the article, the U.S. has direction from the Congress that a legally binding treaty is off the table without “legal symmetry” from all parties. On the other hand, India and China are inclined to defer the date that they could become bound by an agreement. At least one article suggests that the deal is off for now, with the time running out, delegates leaving, and the facilities taking the coffee machines away. The articles below, from Energy & Environment (E&E), reveals some of the politics.
Shared vision – General statement, agrees to continue work toward peaking and reducing emissions.
Mitigation – Reiterates 2 degree goal, and the need to consider in the first review strengthening to 1.5 degrees. Includes reporting process that will include disclosure of assumptions by base year, global warming potential (conversion of value for potent gases), coverage of sectors, land use/forestry, carbon credits from market mechanisms, and conditions associated with pledges. This could be a more robust annex compared to Copenhagen Accord/Cancun Agreements, because there will be more clarity when expressing reduction commitments.
Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification – Includes a International Assessment and Review, detailing the content of reports, and the investigation process, but leaves open the compliance process.
REDD/Deforestation Finance – Directs a process to consider finance for preventing emissions from deforestation, but no major substantive action inserted.
Market Mechanism – “Defines” a market mechanism, rather than “establishes” one here, before more procedures have been discussed. The mechanism as defined by the text operates under the guidance and authority of the COP, and also conditions the use of markets toward developed country targets or commitments, though this is to be elaborated. A separate paragraph emphasizes that credits “must” deliver “real, permanent, additional and verified mitigation outcomes,” “avoid double counting of effort,” and “achieve a net decrease and/or avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions.”
Response Measures – Includes language on a just transition of the workforce and quality jobs. Urges developed countries to assist in economic diversification in the context of sustainable development.
Adaptation – Further structures the Adaptation Committee, including representation from a “small island developing state,” and a “least developed country.” The Committee is requested to continue workshops and reports over the next year.
Finance – Directs a work program for the Green Climate Fund Steering Committee to conduct, focused on developing a registry of projects and improved financial management for fast-start finance, options to mobilize resources for long-term finance, which include public and private, bilateral, and multilateral.
Technology – Directs the Climate Technology Centre and Network to conduct research, development, and demonstration of new climate-friendly technologies, and begins a selection process to select the host country. Funding to come from the financial mechanism, philanthropy, and the host country.
Capacity-building – Establishes an annual “Durban Forum” for a review of efforts, and links back to the financial mechanism.
Review – Confirms the first review starts in 2013, and should complete by 2015, to take into account the best available scientific information, and an assessment of actions taken by Parties, based on the forthcoming IPCC report and other sources.
______________________________________________________
Durban talks -- 'a pressure cooker' -- go down to the wire
Lisa Friedman, E&E reporterFriday, December 9, 2011
DURBAN, South Africa -- Nervous energy filled the halls here as midnight loomed on the final night of U.N. climate talks, where activists and diplomats alike awaited the release of new text outlining how countries intend to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
At issue here in the tense final hours of the negotiations are both the future of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and what countries might be willing to do after 2020 to rein in emissions.
An "indaba" -- a Zulu word that loosely translates to a meeting of elders that the South African conference presidency has been using to describe smaller high-level meetings -- broke up around 9 p.m. local time after impassioned pleas for survival from vulnerable countries directed at the United States, as well as the so-called BASIC countries of Brazil, South Africa, India and China.
"We're here waiting for text and for some people to calm down," said David Waskow, climate policy director at Oxfam America. "It was a pressure cooker, from everything we've heard."
Small island nations and least developed countries are pushing for a mandate from Durban to develop a legally binding treaty that forces all major emitters -- including the United States and China -- to reduce emissions and to enact tougher emission reduction targets before 2020.
For different reasons, both the United States and the major emerging economies have put up roadblocks to deciding here in Durban that they plan to work toward a legally binding agreement.
The United States does not want to do anything until it can be sure that China and other major emitters are bound by the same legal rules as developed nations.
China and India, however, have their own set of conditions before they are legally bound to cut carbon -- including ensuring that they remain part of a protected category in which efforts to cut emissions are strictly voluntary.
A document that the United States, China and some others offered as a consensus option this afternoon -- calling for a new "legal framework" -- was rejected by small island nations and called toothless.
"We hear expressions of concern, yet some countries say they will not do anything until 2020. We see that as irresponsible," said Ian Fry, Tuvalu's lead negotiator. "For us this is a security issue, and we would need to consider this in the context of the [U.N.] Security Council."
Jennifer Haverkamp, who leads the Environmental Defense Fund's international policy team, said that in order for a package to work, countries need to agree to put something in force by or before 2020 and find a way to boost the current pledges for cutting emissions -- pledges that several studies have said are not sufficient to avert the worst impacts of global warming.
"In this negotiation right now, the U.S. has the opportunity -- if it can show more flexibility and ambition on the legal binding agreement -- at the end of the road, they hold in their hands the opportunity to make this a good outcome," Haverkamp said.
U.S. will be responsible if climate talks break down, top E.U. negotiator asserts
Jean Chemnick, E&E reporter
Published: Friday, December 9, 2011
DURBAN, South Africa -- If the U.N. Climate Conference ends today without an agreement -- throwing doubt on the future of climate negotiations -- the U.S. will be largely to blame, Europe's top climate change negotiator charged today.
"If there is no further movement from what I have seen until 4 o'clock this morning, then I must say I don't think there will be a deal in Durban," the European Union's commissioner for climate action Connie Hedegaard told reporters Friday morning, hours away from the end of the 17th Conference of the Parties.
"I think it's clear that the responsibility lies very, very heavily on the shoulders now of those few big ones who are still not giving in so much as for us to be able to agree what we need to agree," she continued.
The E.U. has spent the COP lobbying other countries to sign on to its so-called roadmap for action on emissions reduction, which would bind the E.U. and some other countries to a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, while others, including the U.S. -- which is not covered by the protocol -- agree to negotiate a new, broader legally binding agreement for after 2020.
Europe has had some success. Yesterday a group of developing nations and small islands signed a joint statement with the E.U. declaring that they would be bound by the broader agreement.
"The price of buying time is rising. Durban must deliver," they concluded. "We urge others to join."
But others have not joined. China, India and the U.S. have remained in their entrenched positions.
Frustration builds during final hours
Hedegaard -- cutting the air with her arms as she spoke -- expressed frustration that major emitters had not softened their opposition to the roadmap despite numerous discussions over the past two weeks. The press has reported some movement from both China and the U.S. in the past week, but both have turned out to be misunderstandings.
The U.S. continues to demand that major developing emitters such as China and India agree to be bound by emissions targets before negotiations begin. Hedegaard noted that small developing nations, Brazil and South Africa have all said they will be bound by the broader treaty.
"We all know what the challenge in the United states is, but we also know that for many years it has been an American ask that we should all be equally legally bound," she said.
But Andrew Light, director of the international climate program for the Washington-based Center for American Progress, said that the E.U. delegation is actually divided on how much they need to see at Durban before the union can sign on to a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol.
He said that senior E.U. negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger has said in negotiations that beginning a discussion might be enough -- the U.S. and other countries may not need to spell out that they will accept binding targets after 2020 at the outset, he said.
'A lot of blame to go around'
"Connie seems to me to be pushing the strongest possible interpretation of the outcome they are looking for -- that whatever they can agree to on the roadmap, it must become legally binding," he said. "I couldn't say whether there is disagreement on the goal post among the E.U. negotiators but Artur's analogy for what they want makes this all seem more palatable."
He added that assigning the U.S. blame in advance if the process fails to yield an agreement tonight is unproductive. It is equally true to say that the E.U. caused that failure, because it, too, entered the talks with preconditions.
"It would be causally true that the meeting might fail because the E.U. refuses to extend the [Kyoto Protocol] because China, India and other parties refused to agree to the mandate they have asked by way of a 2020 mandate," he said.
"If the meeting fails -- which would mean that parties withhold their consent on all the other non-KP parts of the deal because the KP does not continue -- then the trigger won't be pulled by the U.S. or the E.U. but by developing countries who insist that the KP must continue," he said. " So, if the meeting fails then there will be a lot of blame to go around. "
The African delegation has made the preservation of the Kyoto Protocol the top priority for this COP, but its top negotiator took a somewhat more forgiving tone toward the big holdouts then Hedegaard did.
Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu, the outgoing chairman of the African group of negotiators, said that countries who are able to make commitments should do so now, leaving open the door for others to follow in the future.
"We should encourage people to do what they can do," he said.
"I think we can come up with a comprehensive instrument that will take on board most of us," he said.
He called on the E.U. to "show virtuous leadership as they have in the past" and sign on to a second commitment period under Kyoto no matter what other major emitters do. But Hedegaard all but ruled that out during her press conference.
"If we are discussing options where people are telling us to ratify and rather today than tomorrow, but then in return we would get is that we start some kind of process to end no later then 2020, then I think everyone could see, that is not exactly a good deal," she said.
"It's not a balanced deal, but it is also a really, really poor deal from a climate perspective," she added.
