[A2k] TWN Bali Update: NORTH-SOUTH WRANGLING CONTINUES ON KYOTO PROTOCOL REVIEW

[Sangeeta]

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understan=
d
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]

Title : TWN Bali News Update No.9
 Date : 11 December 2007

 Contents:
TWN BALI NEWS UPDATE  NO. 9

11 December 2007
Published by Third World Network
www.twnside.org.sg

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
--

NORTH-SOUTH WRANGLING CONTINUES ON KYOTO PROTOCOL REVIEW

Nusa Dua, Bali, 10 Dec (Hira Jhamtani) =AD Discussions going on at the UN
climate conference reveal sharp differences, mainly on North-South lines, o=
n
whether to overhaul the Kyoto Protocol (which many developed countries seem
to want), or to strengthen the implementation of commitments made by
developed countries under it (which was stressed by many developing
countries).

It has become clear that major developed countries want to make use of the
review of the Kyoto Protocol (which is mandated to take place in 2008 under
article 9 of the protocol) to draw the developing countries into making
commitments or undertake more obligations.  The Bali meeting is setting the
parameters of the review process, through adopting a Decision.

The Contact Group (CG) on the Review of the Kyoto Protocol discussed a draf=
t
decision dated December 8 that was discussed on Monday 10 December.

The first round of discussions last week revealed differences of opinions
between developed and developing countries over the scope and content of th=
e
review. The first period of commitment to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions under the Kyoto Protocol is 2008-2012. An ad hoc working group
(AWG) is currently negotiating the reductions for a second commitment
period, which is scheduled to start in 2013.

The developing countries do not have to commit to reduce their emissions
under the Kyoto Protocol. It is believed that several developed countries
would like the developing countries, or some of them, to undertake some for=
m
of commitments, and it would seem they are using the opportunity of the 200=
8
review to put forward their proposals.

Developing countries want the review to focus on improving implementation
while developed countries wanted to look at the architecture of the
Protocol, which could lead to major changes to the Protocol=B9s rules. Such
differences persisted during the discussion on 10 December morning co
chaired by Adrian Macey from New Zealand and Raphael de Azeredo from Brazil=
.

The draft decision says that the aim of the review is to enhance
implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and to identify elements to be
elaborated upon, including for the period beyond 2012, and that the review
shall be based on best scientific information and assessments including the
fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC).

Para 2 says that the review shall not lead to new commitments.  Para 3 says
that preparation should be streamlined with relevant activities being taken
under the Kyoto Protocol and the Convention (probably meaning the Kyoto
Protocol AWG and a new AWG under the Convention that is expected to be
established at Bali) to avoid duplication of work and to take into account
the results of these activities.

The draft decision also recognizes that based on the results of the second
review, the CMP (i.e. the meeting of the parties of the protocol) shall tak=
e
appropriate action.

In para 6, it further invites parties to submit views by 21 March 2008 to
the secretariat on how to enhance implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by
elaborating the following elements: (a) share of proceeds to assist in
meeting the costs of adaptation; (b) procedures and mechanisms relating to
compliance under the Protocol; (c) procedures for amending the annexes to
the Protocol; (d) privileges and immunities for individuals serving on
constituted bodies established under the Protocol.

In para 8, it invites parties to submit by 19 September 2008 views on how  =
a
set of items  should be addressed by the second review including informatio=
n
that demonstrates progress made in advancing their commitments under the
Protocol. The items are: (a) reduction in GHG emission; (b) provisions
relating to reporting and review; (c) provision of financial resources; (d)
transfer of technology; (e) treatment of land use, land use change and
forestry; (f) scope and effectiveness of flexibility mechanisms; (g) scope
of GHG and sectors/source categories listed in Annex A; (h) potential
environmental, economic and social consequences, including spill over
effects on all parties, in particular developing countries, of available
tools, policies, measures and methodologies available to Annex 1 Parties;
(i) the nature of commitments; (j) commitment periods and the base year; (k=
)
global warming potentials.

In para 9, the secretariat is requested, subject to funding availability, t=
o
organize workshop before the fourth CMP to consider the information on the
above items and prepare a report thereafter.  Finally, the fourth CMP is to
consider the information from elaboration of the above items and the
workshop report in undertaking the second review.

The Draft Decision on the scope and content of the second review of the
Kyoto Protocol pursuant to its Article 9 is, according to some developing
countries, loaded with many items that do not reflect a strong focus on
implementation and some items seem to contradict each other.

An example of this is the paragraph 2 and 6c. Para 2 says:  =B3Reiterates t=
hat
the second review shall not lead to new commitments for any Party.=B2   But
Para 6 invites parties and other entities to submit views on how to enhance
implementation of the protocol, elaborating upon some elements of which 6c
is about =B3procedures for amending the annexes to the Kyoto Protocol.=B2  =
Some
countries, notably Iran, said this is strange because the two contradicts
each other.

Some developing countries, such as India, China and Nigeria also said that
paragraph 6c is preempting the results of the review. The review is a revie=
w
not a decision making process so paragraph 6c is preempting that there is a
need to amend the annexes.  Paragraph 6b also suggests elaboration of
=B3procedures and mechanisms relating to compliance under the Kyoto Protoco=
l=B2
which some countries also said was preempting the results of the review.

Most importantly the aim of the review became a contentious issue. Spelt ou=
t
in the first operative paragraph, it says =B3Agrees that the second review =
of
the Kyoto Protocol pursuant to its Article 9 (hereinafter referred to as a
second review) shall aim to enhance implementation of Kyoto Protocol and to
identify elements to be elaborated upon, including for the period beyond
2012, and that the review shall be based on the best scientific information
and assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as
well as relevant technical, social and economic information economic
information.=B2

India asked for clarity on the meaning of the words =B3identify elements to=
 be
elaborated upon=B2 to which the Chair explained that the meaning is to try =
to
translate paragraph 3 of the Decision 7/CMP2 on review of the Protocol
(=B3Acknowledges that a number of elements of the Kyoto Protocol, in
particular adaptation, could be further elaborated upon, and that the
implementation of the Protocol could be further enhanced=B2). To this India
said that the issue could be placed lower down in the draft decision and no=
t
in the paragraph containing the aim of the review.

India also referred to the fact that there were two secretariat staff in
charge of the AWG sitting at the table with the co-chairs. India said, we
have heard a lot of comments about linkages, particularly with AWG, and
further hoped that their presence will not mean the linkages are
established. India added that the review is mandated by article 9 as a
periodical review. The second commitment period is mandated by article 3.9
of the protocol. If there was an intention to link the two, then neither of
the articles would have existed.

India reminded that the key element is better implementation of the protoco=
l
and how this can be done. Thus it did not understand the reason for the
presence of paragraph 6b and 6c. India added: =B3We have limited mandate an=
d
let us focus. If everyone wants to do everything, we cannot achieve
anything=B2.

This was supported by China and Iran. China said they have problems with th=
e
content of paragraphs 6c (on procedures to amend the protocol=B9s annexes) =
and
8.

Nigeria said that it is inappropriate to rewrite the Protocol which
countries have been working on tirelessly for many years. The review must b=
e
about enhancement of implementation and should not tamper the delicate
balance in the Protocol. The Nigerian delegate also said that the chair has
not explained the meaning of Paragraph 6c. These countries and Zambia
reminded that the process should not be linked to other processes.

South Africa, on behalf of the African group, said there is a need to
elaborate on the adaptation element, and this was echoed by Zambia and
Japan.  China said it has a problem with the chapeau of paragraph 8 with th=
e
phrase =B3progress made in advancing their commitments=B2, because the word=
s
advancing their commitments should instead be implementing their
commitments.

Norway accepted the decision as a good starting point, expressing that the
review should be comprehensive. It requested that the issue of maritime
transportation be explicitly stated in the text. New Zealand and Switzerlan=
d
supported the text as it is in paragraph 1 and the linkage with the work of
AWG.

However Switzerland reminded that at the end of the review we do not want t=
o
legislate and that the idea is not to prejudge the outcome in the AWG.
Switzerland also said they are flexible about the mechanism whether to work
under the subsidiary body on implementation or in the form of contact group
as long as the aim is respected. Also the aim of the review should not be t=
o
prejudge the decision of the Convention=B9s conference of parties,
particularly beyond 2012.

Russia said that the many questions posed for clarification arise due to
lack of uniform vision about the mandate of the review. The mandate is not
to duplicate the compliance committee (referring to paragraph 6b). However
the review is important as the construction of the protocol was adopted ten
years ago; a lot has changed since then.

Therefore there is a need to amend the Kyoto Protocol to improve its
construction (the word =B3architecture=B2 in previous sessions have been ch=
anged
by Russia to =B3construction=B2 and the target seems to be the amendment of
Annex B, which lists countries that need to commit to reduce emissions, to
include more countries  probably developing countries such as India and
China).

Portugal (which coordinates the EU) said that the mandate is open to broade=
n
the review as mandated by the protocol. It said the items for elaboration
are important in view of the discussion of the regime beyond 2012, in the
interest of all. And that paragraph 6c is therefore appropriate.

The discussion will be brought to the plenary on December 11. In closing,
the chair reminded that the President of the conference (the Indonesian
Environment Minister) had asked the contact group to be strategic and to
avoid duplication which forms the basis of proposal to link the review with
other processes, namely the AWG on second phase commitments of Annex 1
countries.

The discussion reflects the still deep differences among developing and
developed countries on several issues. First, the focus of the review, in
the draft decision, is not limited to enhancement of implementation, but is
qualified with =B3for the period beyond 2012=B2, which developing countries=
 do
not want.

Second, developed countries want to link this review to the work of AWG.
Developing countries are saying the different articles have different
mechanisms. Third, there is a clear sign of some developed countries wantin=
g
to revisit Annex B, which means opening the way for requesting some
developing countries to commit to emission cuts, without explicitly saying
so, as reflected in paragraph 6c.

Fourth, developed countries are determined to forward the agenda of
=B3comprehensive framework for future climate regime=B2 as evident from the
loaded issues to submitted under paragraph 8 of the draft decision. All
venues under the Convention and the Protocol are being used for that.

In other words the Kyoto Protocol review might be used to drastically
overhaul the original protocol until is no longer recognizable as the Kyoto
Protocol. If a new protocol has development and climate justice dimensions,
that may be acceptable. But discussions seem to be leading to the
elimination of development and justice dimensions, if some countries have
their way.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
--
www.twnside.org.sg;twnet@po.jaring.my


 Author :

------ End of Forwarded Message

--