Durban Climate Talks Near Conclusion

09 Dec 2011

Gina Hanrahan

 

The annual United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 17) is currently underway in Durban, South Africa. Talks have intensified in recent days, as ministers and a number of world leaders arrived for the high-level ministerial segment of the talks on Tuesday, 6 December 2011. Negotiations are due to conclude tomorrow (Friday).

The focus of the talks is twofold. On the one hand, negotiators are seeking to implement the 2010 Cancun Agreements, which include a mechanism for low carbon technology transfer, a framework for adaptation in developing countries, and, most controversially, a Green Climate Fund, designed to channel finance from the developed to the developing world. On the other hand, negotiators must grapple with how to deliver a long-term post-Kyoto climate regime, as the Kyoto Protocol is due to expire at the end of 2012.

Expectations for the conference have been muted and commentary in advance of the conference suggested that negotiators were privately acknowledging that there was little prospect of agreement on a successor treaty to Kyoto before 2020.

The post-Kyoto conundrum

A recent paper by Dan Bodansky outlines the key issues faced by negotiators in Durban with respect to a post-Kyoto regime.

First, the ‘legal form’ of a deal must be addressed. A number of options exist on this front, including a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, a global deal that replaces the Kyoto Protocol, or parallel treaties for states not included in the Kyoto Protocol (such as China or the US).

Second, negotiators must decide on whether a ‘top-down’ or ‘bottom-up’ regulatory approach should be taken. The ‘top-down’ approach would be driven by international commitments, while the ‘bottom-up’ approach, characterised in the Copenhagen/Cancun agreements, would be driven by unilateral national commitments

Third, and particularly contentious, is how to reach agreement on a long-term climate architecture that acknowledges the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities between the developed and developing world for historic emissions on the one hand and current and future emissions on the other hand.

Many are opposed to an asymmetric regime on the Kyoto model that would continue the distinction between developed (Annex I) and developing (Annex II) economies, considering that a number of emerging economies are among the world’s biggest emitters. Indeed, China is the world’s biggest emitter in terms of total emissions. Nevertheless, developing countries point out that their historic and per capita emissions remain low by comparison to Annex I countries, and maintain that their development should not be curbed by legally binding carbon targets.

A number of developed countries currently bound by Kyoto have ruled out a further commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, including Canada, Japan and Russia.

The EU is also anxious to move away from the divide between Annex I and Annex II parties. Speaking to the European Parliament in advance of the conference, EU Climate Action Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard stated that “The right question is not "Kyoto or not Kyoto" – what is at stake for Durban is precisely to go beyond the current Kyoto / non-Kyoto divide, and to ensure that all countries, developed and developing, commit to do their fair share as part of a global undertaking.” In this respect, the EU has a stated preference for a ‘top down’, legally binding deal. It has expressed a willingness to continue with a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, but on the proviso that Durban must result in a clear roadmap for agreement of a comprehensive global climate deal to come into force by 2020. A second commitment period limited to the EU would regulate merely 15% of global emissions, however.

The US, which is not a signatory of the original Kyoto Protocol, is opposed to what it sees as Kyoto’s asymmetric approach, as it does not apply to many of the world’s major emitters, such as China, and maintains that any successor treaty would have to apply to all major emitters symmetrically (which is not to say equally – it would have to be legally binding, but could potentially include different timelines for developed and developing/emerging economies). To date, the US has stated a preference for a ‘bottom up’ approach, with a focus on meaningful unilateral mitigation efforts at national level from the world’s major emitters. However, it emerged today (Thursday), that the US may be willing to back the EU’s proposal for a roadmap.

A split has ostensibly emerged in the BASIC bloc (Brazil, South Africa, India, China), on the issue of a post-Kyoto regime. India, in line with many developing countries, advocates retention of the Kyoto architecture and is anxious to focus on the implementation of existing commitments. China, by contrast, appears to have shifted its position by indicating that it may be willing to consider a legally binding climate deal, on condition that there is an extension of the Kyoto Protocol and delivery of existing fast-start and long-term finance commitments. There is a lack of clarity about the level of China’s ambition on a deal, however. Striking a cautionary note Commissioner Hedegaard stated that she “still believe (s) that China holds one of the central keys to unlock the situation. The EU is willing to take a second Kyoto period, but the central issue remains how China will follow us and when. Here more clarifications and further dialogue are needed.” The US Climate Envoy, Todd Stern, has rejected a deal with conditionality attached.

If no deal or roadmap is agreed in Durban, this could leave a gap in commitment periods for developed economies and entrench a trend towards unilateral ‘bottom up’ approaches. The lack of certainty could also impact on the global carbon market. Technically, small adjustments to the institutional framework could allow the Clean Development Mechanism (established under Kyoto) to continue to function as a mechanism for the developed world to offset domestic emissions through the purchase of credits from projects in the developing world. However, Brazil’s chief negotiator has warned, “You cannot think you can have the instruments of the Kyoto protocol without belonging to the Kyoto protocol.”

Green Climate Fund

The other controversial aspect of the Durban negotiations is agreement on a blueprint for design of the Green Climate Fund agreed at last year’s talks in Cancun.

The Green Climate Fund will channel fast-start and long-term climate finance from the developed to the developing world to assist in mitigation and adaptation. Developed countries committed formally under the Cancun Agreements to the delivery of $30 billion in fast-start finance between 2010 and 2012 and to $100 billion annually by 2020.

The EU is on track to meet its commitments, and has mobilised 65% of the overall pledge for fast-start financing to date. According to analysis conducted by the World Resources Institute, pledges by developed countries amount to $28.22 billion, but only $16.23 billion has been budgeted or requested to date, so delivery is uncertain. The WRI also highlighted a lack of clarity as to whether the commitments are “new and additional,” “balanced between adaptation and mitigation” and “prioritised for the most vulnerable developing countries.”

The tensions over the design of the Green Climate Fund relate to control over the fund and the extent to which it will leverage private sector investment and include funds from the taxation of aviation and shipping. The US has reportedly been reluctant to sign up to the fund due to a lack of clarity about where funds would come from, while developing countries have voiced concerns about the designation of the World Bank as the fund’s interim trustee and the level of private sector involvement. Nevertheless, on Wednesday, 7 December 2011, the US Climate Envoy, Todd Stern, expressed confidence that a compromise would be reached on the fund.

Leveraging private sector investment via the Fund is seen as important because fiscal realities in many developed countries make the delivery of climate finance commitments solely from the public purse challenging at best and impossible at worst. Michael Liebrich of Bloomberg New Energy Finance cautioned in September 2011 that an approach that did not acknowledge private sector involvement would be destined to fail.

Conclusion:

While compromise may well be achieved on a Green Climate Fund, it is as yet unclear whether a compromise can be reached on a post-Kyoto regime or a roadmap to achieve one in Durban. Speaking at the talks on Tuesday, 6 December, UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon urged a realistic approach to the negotiations, stating that “the ultimate goal of a comprehensive and binding climate change agreement may be beyond our reach – for now.” There are as yet only two certainties in the negotiations – that next year’s COP 18 talks will take place in Qatar, and that the present level of climate ambition will be insufficient to limit global temperature increase to the 2 degree target, according to two important reports. See here and here.

 

This content forms part of the E View project, which is part-funded by DG Communication of the European Parliament. 

 

As an independent forum, the Institute does not express any opinions of its own. The views expressed in the article are the sole responsibility of the author.