Climate Tracker

The Durban package: a first assessment

noreply@blogger.com (Marinella Davide) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:12:00 +0000

Delegates huddle to resolve outstanding issues
Courtesy of IISD

On Sunday morning, after more than 14 days of negotiations, the 17th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 17) came to an end. Delegates from 195 countries achieved two main outcomes. Firstly, the Working Group which works on the future commitments under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) decided that there will be a second commitment period. It shall begin on January 1, 2013 and end either on December 31, 2017 or 2020 (to be further agreed by the group). By May 1, 2012 countries which take part to this second period have to convert their economy-wide reduction targets into quantified emission limitation or reduction objectives (QELROs) and submit them for consideration by the next session of the AWG KP. From a legal point of view, the Conference proposed to amend the Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol by including Annex I Parties’ commitments for a second reduction period. Despite the document takes into consideration that Canada, Japan and Russia do not intend to participate in a second period, this solution allows to save the future of market-based mechanisms and, at the same time, to avoid that developing countries will continue to block the negotiation process on that issue. The proposal also adds the Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) to the six greenhouse gases (GHG) regulated under the Protocol (1995 or 2000 will be the base year). The second key outcome is the launch of a process aimed at developing a protocol, another legal instrument or a legal outcome under the Convention applicable to all Parties. To achieve this, a new Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (AWG DB) has been established. The group shall start its work in 2012 in order to adopt the new instrument by 2015 and to implement it from 2020. In addition, the Conference asked to raise the level of ambition of the new agreement, according to the future recommendations of the IPCC. This last-minute compromise, which puts together developed and developing countries, represents a success of the EU strategy which strongly linked its approval of a second commitment period to the adoption of a roadmap for a new climate comprehensive agreement to be launched by 2020. Besides these two unexpected results, the COP also achieved some progress in defining outstanding issues of the Cancun Agreements. In particular, the Green Climate Fund has been launched as an operating entity of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention. It will start to operate in 2012. Although countries failed to agree to a plan to capitalise it, they succeeded to approve a broad design of the Fund and to set up the body that will manage it. Resources will be allocated between mitigation and adaptation activities in a balanced proportion, ensuring appropriate allocation for other activities and taking into account vulnerable developing countries’ needs. As regards the REDD mechanism, further technical steps to better define safeguards and modalities for forest reference emission levels have been undertaken. Noteworthy is the fact that a summary of information on how the safeguards are being addressed should be provided periodically and should be included into national communications from non-Annex I Parties. Procedures to include Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) activities into the CDM have been put forward. Finally, countries decided that the Technology Mechanism will enter in function in 2012. Almost all countries welcomed the Durban package as a first step in the right direction, with the exception of Venezuela that reported poor nations had been threatened they will not get money for climate finance if they blocked the texts.
All the decisions adopted by the Conference are available at http://unfccc.int/2860.php

EU agrees on a second commitment period. But not alone

noreply@blogger.com (Marinella Davide) — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:38:00 +0000

During the EU official visit to Australia and New Zealand, Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard clarified that the EU is willing to sign up to a second period under the Kyoto Protocol only if other major emitters will do the same. The launch of a second commitment period gained ground in recent times because it will allow to keep CDM and other Kyoto mechanisms in operation. Strongly supported by developing countries, this option had been refused by developed countries during the last year talks. However, the EU is open to consider an extension of its commitment if U.S. (which is not part to the Kyoto Protocol) and other emerging economies, such as China and India (which have no binding commitments under the Kyoto Protocol) will join such effort in the near future. EU leaders will possibly discuss this proposal ahead of an October meeting of environment Ministers, at which is expected they will define a common negotiating strategy for the next U.N. Conference in Durban.

No news from Bonn

noreply@blogger.com (International Center for Climate Governance) — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:37:00 +0000

The second 2011 meeting of the Parties to the UNFCCC, which was held in Bonn (6 -19 June) ended without major decisions on the shape of a follow-up to the post-2012 commitments.
Although delegates confirmed that progress was made on technical texts, the debate regarding the possibility of a second commitment period of the KP was inconclusive since the positions of the different negotiating groups seemed as distant as ever. With Russia, the USA, Canada and Japan all set for a “no” to an extension of the Protocol, as wished by developing countries, the fate of the KP hinges by a thin thread. The heat was on the European Union, whose commitment regarding climate change has turned it into a key player in the post-2012 debate. The pressure from developing countries to the EU to unilaterally sign a second commitment period to the KP, was met with resistance by Connie Hedegaard, EU Climate Commissioner, who commented that, despite its efforts, the EU represents a minor share of global emissions and that other major emitters should be pressured and involved in climate negotiations. In fact, at the end of the two weeks, even the European Union, confirmed that no such possibility is feasible unless all major emitting countries commit to binding reduction targets. Remaining on the European front, according to Artur Runge-Metzger, EU’s head of delegation, the possibility of the EU undertaking a 30-percent reduction commitment is not feasible before the talks in Durban at the end of this year, thus wiping out another signal for strengthened commitment in what looks like a crucially complex round of talks.
The debate on the future of the Protocol addressed also the issue of the Clean Development Mechanisms, whose market volume shrunk compared to previous years. The parties did not reach an agreement on whether HFCF and Carbon Capture and Storage credits should be eligible to produce credits under the mechanism, or whether to allow for auditors a greater margin for error when verifying emission reductions. Several other mechanisms were discussed following the proposals brought forward by parties, but no agreement on a shortlist was reached.
A notable decision taken during this round of talks regarding the financing of the UN climate office, whose original request for $51.3 million to be spent between January 2012 and 2014 has been cut by 3 percent in light of the recent economic difficulties due to the crisis. Before the next Conference of Parties in Durban, South Africa, the parties will meet again in July and October.

UNFCCC meets in Bangkok

noreply@blogger.com (Caterina Cruciani) — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:52:00 +0000

The meeting of the United Nation Climate Change Conference, held in Bangkok on April 3-8, closed without major developments, highlighting lingering differences between developed and developing countries. The meeting was mainly aimed at organizing the work of 2011, starting from the conclusions of the last Conference of Parties held in Cancun. While developed countries seemed more focussed on discussing ways to implement the Cancun Agreement, developing countries’ main concern was the future of the Kyoto Protocol. This issue became central to the discussions held during the Conference and was responsible for creating a stalemate in the debate between developed and developing countries, overcome by an agreement to continue discussing about the future of the Protocol. No specific binding emission reductions were agreed, with the emission reduction pledges remaining unenforceable by law, despite the call of developing countries to go for even bolder binding cuts to avoid environmental consequences. The work of the UN Climate Conference will resume at the beginning of June, when the delegates from the 175 parties will rejoin in Bonn, Germany.

The Cancun agreement: adoption without consensus

noreply@blogger.com (chiara rogate) — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:47:00 +0000

COP 16 ended with the adoption of the Cancún agreements, even if consensus was not reached. Actually, the UNFCCC does not have formal voting rules, Parties were indeed not able to agree on which kind of rules was worth adopting during COP 2 and options remained only on paper (Art. 42). The consensus rule was then assumed as custom (a somewhat elastic term that in practice has required only the lack of formal objection by one more parties, rather than unanimous agreement), which could therefore evolve over time.
COP 2 and COP 15 represented in themselves exceptions, since Parties “took note” of the produced agreement and declarations without having reached consensus on them. The Geneva Declaration actually marked the first time that countries were willing to act in the absence of consensus (Bodansky, 2009).
Cancún represent a different situation, since the documents were not noted but adopted in the absence of consensus. Would this set a precedent for climate change negotiation within the UN system? Why a similar decision was not taken at Copenhagen? As regards the first, time will be needed to redefine new customary rules. As regards the second, the outcome of COP 16 was challenged only by one country (Bolivia), while the Copenhagen Accord was opposed by a group of six countries. Numbers could make the difference. Also, Cancún had the more or less outspoken goal of proving that the UN was able to be the fundamental venue for climate change negotiations and Mrs. Espinosa had to provide public and political opinion with an outcome."Moving forward" has this time substitute the "reaching consensus" mantra.

Cancun: mixed feelings on the day after

noreply@blogger.com (Caterina Cruciani) — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:20:00 +0000

The 16th Conference of Parties to the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change closed officially this weekend, raising mixed reactions among delegates and those involved with climate change policy all over the world. Despite the low expectations, the Cancun Conference managed to score some points in the direction of settling core issues in international policy such as discussing the future of the Copenhagen pledges, increase the transparency in motoring, reporting and verification, establish a technology transfer mechanism, address deforestation, and launch a green fund for climate finance.
With the support of 193 parties, overriding the objections of Bolivia, the UN conference adopted the text developed during the conference, which includes the anchoring of the pledges made during the previous UN conference in Copenhagen. The Conference confirmed the future role of the market mechanisms created under the Kyoto Protocol, which will continue to remain available to Parties. Moreover, the eligibility of carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) within the Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) will henceforth be allowed, provided that issues over leakage, liability and environmental impacts are addressed.
The Cancun conference also agreed on a new set of rules to increase the transparency of monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) rules, making them voluntary for developing countries. The Cancun decisions also addressed the role of forests in the mitigation actions of developing countries, which are encouraged to undertake the following activities: Reducing emissions from deforestation; Reducing emissions from forest degradation; Conservation of forest carbon stocks; Sustainable management of forest; Enhancement of forest carbon stocks. Moreover, countries should develop a national action plan, with an adequate monitoring system, thus setting the stage for the development of a global Redd mechanism, although details on the implementation such as the role of market have not been clarified yet. Recognizing the important role of finance, the Cancun conference provided for the creation of a Green Climate Fund, as the operating entity of the financial mechanisms of the Convention (UNFCCC), which aims to raise $100 billion per year by 2020 and will be managed by a board with equal representation between developed and developing countries with the World Bank as a trustee. The adopted text also addressed technology transfer, capacity building and adaptation, establishing a Technology Mechanism to enhance technology development and transfer to support action on mitigation and adaptation, calling for a strengthening of the institutions targeted at capacity building, and establishing the Cancun Adaptation Framework, managed by an Adaptation Committee, whose composition, modalities and procedures will be finalized after the submission of Parties on February 21, 2011.
Despite progress in many areas, the Cancun conference did not deliver an agreement on binding emission reductions, leaving countries free to submit their new pledges, nor said a final word on the future of the Kyoto process. In fact, it remains unclear what the future of the Kyoto architecture could be, but some observers commented that not having it ruled out of a future climate agreement is already a progress.
The full text of the decisions taken during the Cancun conference is available at
http://unfccc.int/2860.php

High level negotiations: China takes the first step

noreply@blogger.com (Marinella Davide) — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:53:00 +0000

Press conference of the BASIC countries: Brazil, China, India and South Africa

This week, high levels ministers and heads of state are arriving in Cancun to negotiate texts prepared by delegates.
On Monday, the Chinese Minister Huang Huikang tryed to revamp the debate on the second commitment period announcing that its country is prepared to making concessions on Kyoto. Indeed, China offered for the first time to submit its voluntary carbon emissions target to a binding resolution under the UNFCCC. Such unexpected concession has the clear objective to make pressure on developed countries to agree on a second commitment period, especially after the announcement that "Japan will not inscribe its target under the Kyoto Protocol on any conditions or under any circumstances”.

Cancun: the time has come

noreply@blogger.com (International Center for Climate Governance) — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 06:24:00 +0000

The 16th Conference of Parties to the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change kicked off on Monday, gathering about 20,000 delegates from all over the world to agree on a future international climate agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol. Halfway through the conference, which will conclude at the end of next week, the road to walk down before an agreement emerges seems still very long. The Cancun conference saw the return of an unpleasant tradition in international negotiations, with a divide emerging between developing and developed countries. In fact, the Alba group, including also Bolivia, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, the Venezuelan representative lamented the lack of commitment of some (unspecified) developed countries in ensuring a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. As was expected from the conference onset, the very issue of the Kyoto Protocol sparked the utmost disagreement, even among developed countries, with Japan continuing in its refusal to consider a second commitment period and even countries like the EU backing off from an outright support, as long as other developed countries do not move in that direction as well. Moreover, even UNFCCC executive secretary Christiana Figueres commented the widely anticipated opposing positions of many parties by saying that “I know for sure that Cancun cannot obliterate the possibility of a second period (of the Kyoto Protocol).” Besides also calling to parties for working towards an agreement regarding the architecture of a future international climate agreement, Figueres hopes for the resolution of some less controversial issues like agreeing on plans for an climate adaptation framework for poor nations, on a system to help transfer green technology from rich countries to poor and on starting a test phase for avoiding deforestation. The possibility to start including emissions from the farming sector, currently responsible for 15-30% of global greenhouse gases, depending on whether or not forest clearances for farmland are included, as hoped by lobbyists from the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, seems less feasible now, with major issues still under discussions and pressure to agree on a deforestation first. In addition, a business forum on the sidelines of the Cancun conference called the delegates’ attention on the need to focus on energy efficiency, claiming that up to half the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions recommended by scientists to avoid a sharp increase in global average temperatures can be accomplished through such measures.
Delegates are reportedly keeping their expectations down, to avoid last year’s disappointment, but with a week to go, anything can happen.

Published by Caterina Cruciani

Climate Change Talks begin in Cancún

noreply@blogger.com (Marinella Davide) — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:56:00 +0000

Yesterday in Cancun, the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP-16) to the UNFCCC opened its work, which is scheduled to conclude on Friday 10 December 2010. The conference includes also the 6th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 6).
The focus of the conference is on the two-track negotiating process aiming at enhancing long-term international cooperation on climate change and further commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
Despite the lack of progress achieved during the last climate talks in Tianjin, it could be foreseen that Parties in Cancùn will translate into a “balanced set of decisions” some negotiating issues, where consensus can already be reached.
For more information read the last issue of the International Climate Policy & Carbon Markets "GETTING READY FOR CANCÚN", which features an in-depth analysis of the main issues that are likely to be debated during the Conference of the Parties.

The NATO New Strategic Concept

noreply@blogger.com (chiara rogate) — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 16:26:00 +0000

NATO Members adopted the New Strategic Concept on the 19th of November.
The document, the second in NATO’s history and first after 1999, will constitute the roadmap for the Alliance’s military planning and strategic activities in the next ten years.
Notwithstanding the increased attention given to climate change in the past months, which was witnessed, for instance, by Secretary General’s speeches, the New Strategic Concept only mention it once, and in the context of “key environmental and resource constraints” (within the “Security Environment” paragraph, bullet 15). The low relevance conferred to climate change in NATO’s future is indeed not unexpected, and also reflects the Groups of Experts’ document. First, because the document is only a general roadmap of NATO’s activity in the future. It outlines on purpose the Alliance’s activities and strategic challenges in general and brief terms. This reflects the need to produce a manageable and comprehensible document, which would reach and inform the broad public as well. More importantly, it is the outcome of months of hard work to achieve a compromise among strongly different interests, which see NATO through different lengths and interpret the Alliance defensive scope (and action) in diverse ways. Second, more urgent and pertinent issues required to be defined, like the Transatlantic Treaty Organization’s military outreach (therefore the geographic meaning of Article 5 commitments), particularly after the Afghan war. Third, prudence has to be on the table when defining strategic challenges, since the risks of overstretching always loom, which is particularly true when coupled with the effects of the economic and financial crisis, which already cut the defence budgets of many countries. Forth, last but not least, climate change belongs to NATO’s competences only as much as it declined in terms of human security.
To see how and, most importantly, if climate change will be handled by the military organization’s, we have to wait. Maybe only until the release of the next IPCC report.

EU agrees on the negotiating strategy in Cancun

noreply@blogger.com (Marinella Davide) — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:55:00 +0000

On October 14th, the EU Environment Ministers’ Council met in Luxembourg to agree on a common negotiating strategy for the upcoming 16th Conference of the Parties in Cancun (COP-16). Council's conclusions highlight the urgency to make progress towards an ambitious post-2012 climate regime.
To this purpose, the Council stresses that:

both Ad Hoc Working Groups (LCA and KP) should work to agree on a set of decisions to be approved during the COP 16, which can be implemented in the near-term avoiding a gap after the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol;
this set has to include progress made on adaptation, mitigation, technology, capacity-building, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), agriculture, Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV), finance and market-based mechanisms;
there is the need to agree on ambitious targets consistent with the 2°C objective;
all countries’ pledges in Cancun should be anchored and a registry to start capturing and facilitate matching of actions should be established;
the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has to be reformed and the COP 16 should provide a basis for the introduction of new sectoral or other scaled-up market mechanisms;
it is important to develop guidelines for a coherent and balanced system for MRV, including international consultation and analysis;

In addition the EU Ministers reaffirm the conditional offer to move to a 30% reduction by 2020 but decide to postpone the decision to move beyond 20% in 2011. They also confirm the European support for a second commitment period, as part of a global and comprehensive framework engaging all major economies and reiterates its preference for a single legally binding instrument, based on the Copenhagen Accord and that would include the essential elements of the Kyoto Protocol. In addition, they commit to operationalise the REDD+ mechanism through a decision in Cancún which includes developing sound guidelines, rules and modalities for REDD+ actions.

The last shot

noreply@blogger.com (Marinella Davide) — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:53:00 +0000

Last week climate negotiations went into their final step before the Conference (COP 16) which will take place in Cancun next December. UNFCCC delegates met in Tianjin (China) from Monday, 4 to Saturday, 9 October with the objective to streamline the negotiating texts and prepare a set of decisions to be approved by the world leaders in Mexico. Accordingly, countries worked to better define advanced issues in order to prepare a balanced "Cancun package". During the week Parties focused on how to translate the emission reduction pledges made in Copenhagen into a new deal. In this context, the increasing China-US divide regarding mitigation commitments confirmed that developed and developing countries are still divided over responsibilities for emission reduction. In fact, the north-south divide beats again: developing countries are called upon to agree on the details on the monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) procedures for emission reductions, but are wary of the proposals presented so far. Different positions still remain also on other issues, especially on the second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, supported by the EU-27, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, and Small Island, but strongly opposed by the US and Japan.
After the lack of progress in this last session, the hopes to definitively agree on a 2012 post-Kyoto climate regime are much lower than those in Copenhagen. Already before the Conference in Cancun starts, it seems certain that the outcomes will be minimal.

What will change for the IPCC?

noreply@blogger.com (Marinella Davide) — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:51:00 +0000

Last Monday, August 30, the IPCC released the “Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC” .
This report has been commissioned to the InterAcademy Council (IAC) by the UN Secretary General and the much-criticised Chair of the IPCC Pachauri with the request to conduct an independent review of procedures. The need to revise the IPCC process emerged as the Forth Assessment Report (AR4) of 2007 has been severely criticized for some inaccuracies or mistaken predictions. In particular the “Climategate” and the wrong prediction about Himalayan glaciers melting in 2035 questioned the scientific credibility of the overall Panel.
After five months of work , the IAC Committee concluded that, despite the IPCC process has been successful overall, it could be improved through some changes in the governance and the structure of the Panel. Indeed, it suggests the following key actions:

Clarify the role of the Review Editors, encouraging them to fully exercise their authority;
Revise the ability to manage the number of review comments. To this purpose the IAC Committee recommends to establish a targeted process which demands to both Editors and Authors to prepare written summaries of controversial issues and responses;
Adopt a more transparent approach in the communication of Assesment Reports;
Adopt a single scale to describe uncertainty. Specifically, it recommends to use the quantitative likelihood only when there is sufficient evidence;
Establish an Executive Committee which makes decisions quickly. Such Executive body should be composed also of independent members in order to guarantee its full independence;
Appoint an Executive Director to lead day-to-day activities and support the Secretariat;
Limit the term of office of the institutional figures (Executive Director, IPCC Chair and Working Group Co-Chairs) to just one assessment period.

Ultimately, these proposals do not require any radical change but merely an effort towards a greater and more effective application of existing principles and procedures. However, the Committee seems to emphasize also that, to face future challenges the IPCC has to renew its institutional leadership.
Now, the next step is up to IPCC national governments, which have to transform the recommendations from the IAC in concrete actions (hopefully).

UNFCCC looks into plan B

noreply@blogger.com (Caterina Cruciani) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:25:00 +0000

As 2012 draws closer and closer the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) officially started thinking about a contingency plan, in case no agreement on a Kyoto Protocol successor were struck in time. The document published on the UNFCCC website focuses on the legal implications that a gap between the current international agreement and its possible successor could entail.
Under current rules three quarter of the parties to the UNFCCC (143 of the 190 countries) must accept the agreement to make it binding, and in order to avoid a gap with the current scheme, this acceptance should take place by October 12, 2012. Moreover, even once an international framework had been agreed upon, it would take a long time to ratify at national-parliament level, as the Kyoto Protocol ratification process has shown, which could undermine the continuity with the old scheme. Thus, in order to facilitate the process of ratification, instruments such as tacit acceptance or automatic opt-in after acceptance could be useful as well as other modification of the ratification amendments, or even the possibility to reduce the required majority for approving a new treaty, or the possibility to simply extend current commitments. These modifications would be considered provisional and are currently feasible under international law.

The text of the document can be found at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/awg13/eng/10.pdf

Time to reform climate institutions?

noreply@blogger.com (Marinella Davide) — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:47:00 +0000

The last climate Conference in Copenhagen and the difficulty to reach a comprehensive agreement, pointed out three main problems with the negotiating process under the United Nations:

it involves too many countries: 194, when 20 account for about 90% of global emissions;
the voting rules require consensus for nearly all decisions, this often makes the decision-making too difficult;
the discussion is polarized in two factions: developed vs. developing countries.

So, for these reasons the academic world is questioning the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as the major institutional venue for international climate policy negotiation. The matter is not new, but in recent years something is changing.
Indeed, States have begun to negotiate plurilateral, non-legally binding climate agreements outside of the UNFCCC umbrella. In particular, there are four nascent “clubs” addressing climate change cooperation: the Asia Pacific Partnership (AP6), the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF), the G8 and the G20 meetings. Among these, the MEF, which brings together 17 developed and developing nations accounting for about 90% of global emissions, and the “Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors,” could be considered as possible alternatives to the too inclusive UNFCCC process. Countries have also created various bilateral and multilateral institutions as well as transnational agreements addressing climate changes.
The rise of these institutions could be viewed as a shift to new modes of climate governance, which build non-hierarchical steering and are characterized by decentralized, voluntary, market-oriented interaction between public and private actors.
These circumstances have led to an extensive debate on the best way to address climate change: is the universal approach, represented by the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol, the best way to tackle climate change, or is it better to follow a strategy that includes a variety of agreements? The implications of these alternative institutional architectures are several and involve, at the same time, elements from institutional theory, environmental policy, and international law.
The following Table summarizes pros and cons of a fragmented climate governance (Click to enlarge):

These and other issues were the subject of the International Workshop on "Institutions for Climate Governance" organised in Venice, on May 20th-21st, 2010, by the International Center for Climate Governance (ICCG), the Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM), the Centro Euro-Mediterraneo per i Cambiamenti Climatici (CMCC) and the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements, in which experts from different disciplines provided important insights on the future of climate institutions.

See also:
Stavins (2010) “Another Copenhagen Outcome: Serious Questions About the Best Institutional Path Forward”, An Economic View of the Environment, Blog post Jan. 15, 2010.

Biermann F., P. Patterberg, H. van Asselt, F. Zelli (2007) “Fragmentation vs. Universalism? Assessing Options for the Polity of Post-2012 Global Climate Governance”, ADAM project manuscript.

A new leader for the UNFCCC

noreply@blogger.com (Marinella Davide) — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:25:00 +0000

As announced last May by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC in the next years will be a woman coming from a developing country. In fact, last Thursday July 8, Ms. Christiana Figueres has taken the lead in the negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. With a long experience as a member of the Costa Rican negotiating team and in both non-governmental and private sectors, Ms. Figueres is considered one of the most skilled mediators of the Convention as well as an international leader on strategies to address global climate challenges. For this reason she already facilitated and co-chaired several contact groups, in particular the Contact Group on Clean Development Mechanism in Nairobi in 2006, in Poznan in 2008, and in Copenhagen in 2009, and the Contact Group on flexibility mechanisms for the post 2012 regime, in Bonn, Accra and Poznan in 2008. In addition, she was a member of the Friends of the Chair that negotiated the Bali Action Plan in December 2007.
In replacing Yvo de Boer to the head of the Convention, Christiana Figueres becomes the fourth UNFCCC Executive Secretary and inherits the difficult task of leading climate Talks for the future agreement in Cancun and beyond.

In the picture Ms. Figueres with two of her predecessors, Mr. Yvo de Boer (left) whom she succeeds, and Mr. Michael Zammit Cutajar (right), the first UNFCCC Executive Secretary in office from 1991 to 2002. Ms. Joke Waller-Hunter, who was in office from 2002, passed away in 2005.

More info about Christiana Figueres

Text and Talks

noreply@blogger.com (chiara rogate) — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:14:00 +0000

Two weeks of extremely busy agendas, crowded meeting rooms (overflow rooms were sometimes needed) and no substantive outcomes characterized the Bonn June talks (May 31st-June 11th).
No agreement was reached on the text to be presented at Cancun in November, and the Bonn August talks are now the last chance to find a compromise (the Chair of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) – who drafted the text – asked the Parties to compile a revised version by the next negotiating session).
All the countries that didn’t agree to the Copenhagen Accord (Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Sudan, Venezuela, Tuvalu) were still expressing the same claims - Bolivia was in the forefront, taking an almost obstructive stance, while Cuba didn’t actually intervene in the negotiations - decreasing the currently low chances of reaching an agreement in Cancun (Table).
Their opposition reflects several interests, which are often part of a broader foreign agenda. Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua share an ideological affinity, which is heavily characterized by anti-U.S. rhetoric and climate change has become part of it (even if they actually blame all the developed world for being responsible for CC). After Copenhagen, Cuba’s representative accused Obama of behaving like an “imperial chief” displaying “arrogant” behavior aimed at quashing developing countries”; just as the Bolivian representative accused the U.S. of spending trillions of dollars on exporting terrorism to Iraq and Afghanistan and establishing military bases in Latin America while offering a “ridiculous” figure ($10 billion) per year for developing nations. They are all also members of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), which was created as an alternative to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) proposed by the U.S. as an extension of NAFTA. They all share development concerns (and ALBA led, for example, to Venezuela’s favourable oil sales to Cuba) and consider the developed world responsible for a “climate debt”. Among the countries who refuse to agree to the Accord, the coral atoll nation Tuvalu is the only one which seems to have “good” reasons, since it is afraid of disappearing and since it is the first country with climate refugees. Venezuela hosts one of the largest non-conventional resources reserves, whose extraction leads to high emissions and has huge environmental impact, but the country is investing in it due to a decrease in conventional oil reserves.
Bolivia seems to embrace a leading role among those who have rejected the Accord not only because Morales’ election constituted the triumph of the “anti-imperialist governments”, but also because the Bolivian government is openly challenging the Copenhagen process offering a new mainstream for climate change. Bolivia is trying to appealingly re-elaborate the developed vs developing worlds divide and The World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth held in Cochabamba in April (re-christened the “Woodstock” of climate change summits) is part of this process. The text produced there, the “People’s Agreement”, which was presented during the last Bonn talks, non only reflects the 6 countries’ complaints and targets, but also proposes, for example, a world referendum to consult populations on climate change; the recognition and revalorization of indigenous roots of all humanity and full respect for the rights of indigenous peoples; a United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth; an analysis of the structural causes of climate change (generated by the capitalist system); the protection and recognition of the rights and needs of those forced to migrate due to climate change. Bolivia is also a lithium-rich country and an intensive use of this material is now being discussed, for instance for electric cars. Bolivia’s behaviour could therefore also be interpreted as a commercial strategy: the more developing countries will have to reduce their emissions the more they will need lithium. Nevertheless, playing with unreasonable targets like the 1ºC only jeopardizes the achievement of an international agreement and therefore the benefits for the country.
While challenging the Accord Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Sudan, Venezuela, Tuvalu are indeed not proposing realistic targets. The 1ºC aim is simply unrealistic because it correspond to a concentration of 350 ppm CO2-eq which to be reached, given the current 430 ppm concentration, would require reducing emissions to zero now and at the same time absorb 80 ppm CO2-eq, namely the amount produced during the last 50 years, which would take another 50 years to absorb (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report WGI, Cap. 10, Table 10.8, pg. 826). Therefore, insisting on this target only hampers negotiations, prevents reaching an agreement and creates a stalemate which benefits no one.

Issue	Copenhagen (Dec. 2009)	Bonn (June 2010)
1°C Emission Target	Bolivia, Venezuela, Tuvalu (any rise over 1.5°C not negotiable)	Bolivia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Tuvalu
Emission reduction	Bolivia: ↓ 49% (from 1990) by 2020	Bolivia: ↓ 50% (from 1990) by 2017
DCs responsibility and "climate debt"	Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela	Bolivia, Nicaragua
Finance: 6% DCs' GDP	Bolivia	Bolivia, Nicaragua
Finance: no market approach and only public funds	Bolivia, Venezuela	Bolivia, Nicaragua
No democratic procedures and transparency	Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, Sudan, Tuvalu	Bolivia (abuse of the flexibility mechanism, profits for DCs) Venezuela (Secretary General's High Level Advisory Group on CC Finance is a process outside the UNFCCC with limited participation)
Legally binding	Bolivia, Tuvalu	Bolivia, Venezuela, Tuvalu

Source: IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin COP 15 and SB 30

Numbers...again!

noreply@blogger.com (Marinella Davide) — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:05:00 +0000

The two weeks of negotiating talks held in Bonn concluded yesterday. During this session, Parties resumed negotiations from the two Ad Hoc Working Groups left open in December. Also both Subsidiary Bodies started their work again.

During the weeks developing countries asked for a more ambitious mitigation target, namely a limit to the atmospheric temperature increase by 1.5°C.
The debate rose after that most vulnerable countries claimed that the reduction commitments submitted under the Copenhagen Accord are not sufficient to prevent climate change impacts. To support this concerns, the Bolivian delegation presented a study, showing that the current targets will allow developed countries to further increase their emissions. The debate concluded with the request by developing countries of a scientific review as the basis of increased climate ambition. However, Saudi Arabia, supported by other OPEC nations, opposed this attempt to go ahead with the scientific review. The matter was postponed to the next two formal sessions ahead of Cancún.

Kerry-Lieberman: the contents

noreply@blogger.com (Marinella Davide) — Sat, 15 May 2010 08:35:00 +0000

According to its authors, the American Power Act will transform U.S. economy, set the country on the path toward energy independence and improve air quality. In addition, it will create millions of new jobs and it will launch U.S. into a position of leadership in the global clean energy economy.
The following sections describe how the new bill will seek to achieve these objectives.

Overall structure:
create a cap-and-trade system for the electricity sector in 2013 initially, with the industrial sector phased in 2016, with linked refinery cap, plus consumer rebates, support for state-level renewable electricity and energy efficiency standards as well as energy investments.

Coverage:
sources of pollution that produce more than 25,000 tons of emission annually, namely 7,500 factories and power plants.
Emission targets:
• 17% below 2005 by 2020;
• 83% below 2005 by 2050.
Permit allocation:
allocations based on historical emissions, early action, and energy production with 25% auction at start phasing to 100% auction by 2035.
Carbon price predictability:
introductory floor and ceiling prices are set at $12 (increasing at 3% over inflation annually) and $25 (increasing at 5% over inflation annually), respectively, plus permit reserve auction.
Offset provisions:
largely similar to those in Waxman-Markey bill. It allows for the use of 2 billion tons GHG emissions of qualified offsets each year, including up to 25% (500 million) from international projects, plus an additional 1 billion tons GHG emissions from international sources to reach the total of 2 billion tons annually.
Green economy investment:
$70 billion for clean and natural gas transportation over ten years. Extensive support for nuclear through accelerated depreciation for nuclear plants, a new investment tax credit to promote the construction of new generating facilities, $54 billion in loan guarantees and a manufacturing tax credit to spur the domestic production of nuclear parts. Support for renewable energy technology, advanced vehicle technologies. $ 2 billion per year as annual incentives for researching and developing effective carbon capture and sequestration methods and devices.
Consumer protection:
revenues dedicated to consumer protection through rebates and energy bill discounts;
assistance to Americans disproportionately affected by potential increases in energy prices; universal rebate checks from 75% of auction revenues starting in 2026 .

The Kerry-Lieberman - compromise - Bill

noreply@blogger.com (chiara rogate) — Fri, 14 May 2010 16:10:00 +0000

The American Power Act, unveiled on Wednesday by Senators Kerry and Lieberman, outspokenly aims at being a compromise bill. When the Democratic effort to take up the Kerry-Boxer Senate legislation (also known as CEJAPA) stalled after the bill passed out of committee, the "tri-partisan" group of Senators John Kerry (D), Lindsey Graham (R), and Joe Lieberman (I) set out to write a comprehensive bill they believed could secure 60 votes on the Senate floor and achieve the three administration’s main goals: green jobs, green technology and green exports.

While the bill hasn’t received many comments yet (many senators and companies like the American Petroleum Institute said they are withholding their judgement until they study the proposal in depth) it is, however, possible to outline some main difficulties its approval will encounter.
To begin with, the tri-partisan group is now bipartisan. Senator Graham withdrew, since he doesn’t believe the legislation has a chance to pass both because of the Senate Democrats’ desire to pass immigration reform this year and because of the Mexican Gulf spill and subsequent veto power given to states by the APA, which has limited the encouragement the initial bill wanted to give to offshore oil drilling. Immediately after the unveiling, Senate Minority Leader M. McConnell said that he and other Republicans will fight the legislation because “whatever its intentions, this bill is little more than a job-killing national energy tax”, referring to the caps on GHG emissions, initially foreseen only for the power sector. While Lieberman said that there’s more business support for this bill than for any other Democratic initiative (and BP and Conoco-Philips have indicated their support), it still needs to be proved. Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - an outspoken opponent of every previous legislative effort to address global warming with mandatory caps on emissions - strongly expressed its opposition to this new effort. Outlining which formula will be used when giving credits to the power companies also threatens to divide Senate Democrats along regional lines.
Like every Senate proposal, APA needs to be approved first by the Senate, then by Congress, then again by the Senate, after which the President’s signature would be required. Timing could not be predicted - as for any other bill - but the President called on the Senate to move ahead so that a final bill could be enacted this year. It would be a tough task, and Senate Majority Leader H. M. Reid is playing for time. He clearly stated that he would probably not be able to bring the legislation to the floor this year without more help from Republicans. Reactions following the unveiling will be critical in Reid’s decision about whether to bring the proposal to the floor this spring or summer. For the time being, what seems to be sure is that Reid is planning to huddle with the six major committee leaders with jurisdiction on the issue after Memorial Day break (May 31st).

US: Senators Kerry and Lieberman released climate bill proposal

noreply@blogger.com (chiara rogate) — Thu, 13 May 2010 15:34:00 +0000

As announced last week, Senators John Kerry (D) and Joe Lieberman (I) today unveiled the American Power Act (APA), a Senate bill aiming at gathering bipartisan support.
This is a long-awaited bill. Senators J. Kerry and Lindsey Graham (R) formally announced their commitment to work on comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation on October 11, 2009, while Senator J. Lieberman joined this effort two months later. The climate bill aims to tackle climate change with a more comprehensive approach, capitalizing on “a growing and unprecedented bipartisan coalition from the business, national security, faith and environmental communities” which drafted the text in previous months.
While the 987-pages Kerry-Lieberman plan (of which a 4- page summary is available) calls for a 17% reduction in carbon pollution from 2005 levels by 2020 like the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill ; it differs
from the passed legislation in several respects. Mainly, it sponsors a sector rather than an economy- wide approach to carbon reductions and it provides more incentives for new nuclear power and offshore oil drilling.

An informal meeting to break the ice

noreply@blogger.com (Marinella Davide) — Fri, 07 May 2010 11:22:00 +0000

Less than one month before the next UNFCCC formal meeting, countries met in an informal conference from 2 to 4 May in Petersberg, near Bonn. Organised by Germany and Mexico, the Petersberg Climate Dialogue involved environment and climate ministers from 45 key nations. They discussed the main issues such as mitigation actions, financing, reforestation and technology transfers to developing countries, with the aim to decide the next concrete steps in the run-up to the COP-16 in Cancún (Mexico),
The conference didn't adopt any formal decision but at least revived the international debate on climate change.

The long road to Cancun

noreply@blogger.com (Marinella Davide) — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:03:00 +0000

After a night of negotiations, the UNFCCC meeting in Bonn concluded this early morning. Parties agreed on the future negotiating agenda, adding two more sessions before the big conference in Cancun. So, in 2010, countries will meet four times in an attempt to reach an agreement by the end of the year. However, two aspects stand out from this short meeting. The first is the "gigatonne gap", it's not a new concept but it's the first time that countries explicitly talk about it. Gigatonne gap refers to the gap between the reduction targets proposed by countries and the emission cuts needed to keep the temperature under the 2 degrees objective.The second point is how to include the Copenaghen Accord in a common text under the UNFCCC. In this regard, some countries suggested that negotiations should continue its work with the last text drafted by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) in Copenhagen, while others argued that future negotiation should be based on the Copenhagen Accord.The two working groups concluded the meeting by inviting the Chairs to prepare documents to facilitate negotiations during the next Talks, to be held from May 31 to June 11, again in Bonn.

Back in Bonn

noreply@blogger.com (Marinella Davide) — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 12:16:00 +0000

For the first time after the Conference held in Copenhagen, countries will meet next Friday in a round of formal U.N. climate talks. According to the UNFCCC agenda, national representatives of the 194 Parties will resume negotiations on the future climate agreement from 9 to 11 April 2010 in Bonn, Germany.
This first session will mainly focus on the organization of work of the two Ad Hoc Working Groups this year, including the need for additional meetings, with the objective to address pending issues and reach a shared outcome at the Conference of the Parties (COP-16) in Mexico next December.

UNFCCC Overview scedule

Renewable target: EU on track, some Member States no

noreply@blogger.com (Alice Favero) — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:43:00 +0000

Some days ago, each Member State has submitted to the European Commission a report in which it estimated the potential share of renewable energy in its final energy consumption by 2020.
According to the Summary Report, at least ten Member States expect to have a surplus in 2020 compared to their binding target for the share of renewable energy in their final energy consumption while five Member States expect to have a deficit.
However, this results are preliminary. It will be possible to have more details by the end of June 2010 when states submit their the National Renewable Energy Action Plans.

According to the Renewable Energy Directive, Member States which consider that they cannot reach their targets only with domestic resources, must either acquire transfers from other Member States or countries outside the EU. In particular, through “statistical transfers" Member States agree to exchange statistically a given quantity renewable energy produced. While, through "joint project" a specific new plant is identified and the output of the plant shared statistically between Member States. Finally, joint projects regarding electricity production could be established with third countries if a number of conditions are met.