Progress slow in Bangkok

Parties remain stack on many fronts at the ongoing climate change negotiations in Bangkok, Thailand. At a stocktaking session of the Adhoc Working group on the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) convened by the chair, Madeleine Diouf, developing countries expressed frustration at the lack of progress. 

G-77 & China negotiators in a huddle

Developed countries were equally dismayed at developing country parties’ persistence that Annex I parties make deep cuts in their emissions as well as make available finance, technology for developing countries to adapt and pursue low carbon pathways.

Senegal said without any substantive progress on the Kyoto Protocol track, other tracks cannot make any meaningful progress. Senegal spoke for Least Developing Countries (LDC). 

St Lucia, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) expressed concern over developed country parties’ lack of ambition, to cut more deeply their carbon emissions. For AOSIS, developed countries don’t seem to appreciate the consequences of a likely 3°C rise in global temperature. 

However, Russia like many of the parties that have withdrawn from the KP or simply do not subscribe to the rules-based, top-down multilateral system that the protocol represents, want to enjoy the rewards of the mechanism. 

Developing countries remain resolute that these rewards including New Market Mechanisms will be limited to parties that sign on to the second emissions commitment period of the KP. It remains to be seen how firmly these countries will stand their ground to defend their science-backed position.

Divergence on details of renewing the Protocol

Many parties were explicitly dissatisfied with the slow pace of progress at the AWG-KP and the failure to reach convergence on a list of critical issues around the second commitment period of the Protocol.

The issues over which they diverge are many and range from the length of the second commitment period, through the overall ambition level, to the mid-term review of commitment period reserve and carryover of Assigned Amount Units (AAU) to the failure of some Annex I Parties to submit their Quantified Emissions Limitation and Reduction Commitments (QELROs) information and conditions attached to QELROs submitted by some developed country parties.

These concerns shot to the fore at the closing plenary of the Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) on May 24.  Senegal’s Madeleine Diouf–Sarr is chair of the AWG-KP.

Algeria (chair of G77 and China) said the lack of clarity around the QELROs especially will impede satisfactory outcome for the second commitment period of the Protocol.

Swaziland speaking for the Africa group said some parties were pushing for re-interpretation of Protocol in an attempt to stall the process. In an apparent reference to the AWG-ADP process, the group also expressed concern over attempts by developed country parties to link the second commitment period with other processes.

Developing countries and groups want a five-year term for the second commitment period to avoid locking in the low ambitions of Annex I Parties. However Annex I Parties insist on an eight-year period.

Gambia (chair of the Least Developed Countries) said it was unacceptable that some Annex I Parties have failed to submit their QELROs due to ‘national circumstances’. Nauru (chair of Association of Small Island States) also noted that the low ambition levels of Parties cannot warrant an eight-year commitment period.  These concerns were also echoed by Ecuador (for the Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our America), Saudi Arabia (for the Arab Group), Bangladesh and India.

The European Union which insists on an eight-year period said the length of the second commitment period is inextricably linked to other outstanding issues such as amendments to Annex B and the carryover surplus AAUs. In effect, for the European Union the lack of progress on the length of the second commitment period will impede movement on all the other issues.

The first commitment period of the KP ends later this year and the second period is expected to come into force on January 1, 2013 to avoid gaps between the two periods.

US, EU block negotiations on finance

The United States and its allies are blocking negotiations on finance at the Bonn UN climate change meeting. Developing countries want Annex I Parties to renew commitment to the three-year Fast Start Finance (FST) as a first step towards bridging the gaping funding gap. Little progress has been made in Long-term Finance.

At the AWG-LCA contact group meeting on finance on May 23, 2012, developing countries sought for clarifications on the nature and sources of finance to fill the gap that will emerge once the (FSF) ends later this year.

United States said the FST was a ‘one-time political commitment’ and therefore will not be renewed to set a precedent. The European Union was much less blunt. The EU said it will contribute its fair share of international public support but also noted that private and innovative finance will play a much bigger role. Discussions on Long-term Finance stalled. The EU said a workshop in July and another later this year will deal with the question of long-term finance.

But the US and EU also opposed calls by developing countries for a spin-off group on finance to concretely address the funding gap post 2012.

Developing countries pointed out the financing gap from 2013 to 2020 and the need for new, additional and predictable funding. Developing countries also want climate change finances to come from predictable and public sources rather than private and other less predictable sources.

Under the Copenhagen Accord and Cancun Decision Annex I (developed) countries are obliged to provide developing countries with Fast Start Finance of US$30 billion to mitigate the impacts of climate change for the three year period of 2010-2012. In addition to the FSF, Annex I Parties were committed to provide US$100 billion annually by 2020 to enable poor countries to tackle climate change.

The US said the 2020 target of mobilizing US$100 billion was linked to meaningful mitigation actions for 2020. For the US if developing countries want to have a mid-term finance target, as proposed by many developing countries, then they would have to take on mid-term mitigation targets. However Egypt remarked that the US$100 billion was not set with mitigation goals and that a mid-term goal for mitigation (for developing countries) was a new idea.

Developing country concerns about long-term finance borders on clarity of sources, access modalities, timeframe and pathway for scaling up finance and the adequacy of the US$100 billion.