Wednesday, November 30, 2011

@COP17: A New Magic Number for the Kyoto Protocol

There is a new game in town, and it’s about finding a new magic number. So far the magic number was 2012.  That is when the Kyoto Protocol’s key provision will run out and therefore seemed to be the natural starting point for something new.  However, different suggestions what this ‘new thing’ should be have come with very different timeframes attached. The years 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2020 have all been mentioned – take your pick! In order to explain the climate math we will need some basic facts about the Kyoto Protocol (KP). (If you are an expert on the matter, skip the next paragraph!)
The KP is an international treaty that obliges the countries listed in Annex I (often called the ‘Global North’ or ‘the developed countries’) to reduce their annual carbon emissions 5% below 1990 levels during a so-called five-year commitment period, which is running from 2008 to 2012. (Mind you, when signing this agreement everyone knew 5% emission reductions would not make a dent in the warming curve, but it was a sign of goodwill, meant to get things going.) Now that this first time period with legally binding emission reduction targets for some but not others is running out, a big battle is raging over what to do next.
Here is a short guide to the official positions of the major negotiating blocs on the future of the KP:  
·      G77 & China – “2CP for Annex I Countries!”   This group represents the roughly 130 developing countries and demands a second commitment period (2CP) of the KP with more ambitious emission reduction targets for Annex I countries. Recognizing that current pledges are insufficient to keep warming below 2°C, this group argues that developed countries that are not listed in Annex I should take on comparable reduction commitments.
·      African Group - “2CP for Annex I Countries!”   The African countries endorse the G77 position, urging a more ambitious 2CP. They add concerns about the implications of a KP collapse for existing market mechanisms, but I suspect their concern is more about other benefits of the KP.
·      Umbrella Group – “Drop the KP!”   Members of this group include the US, Canada, Japan, Australia and Russia. They don’t even talk about the KP anymore; instead they demand a new climate regime with binding emission reduction targets for all economies. While the Umbrella Group does not mention any numbers or timeline, the US has stated that we should be thinking about a “post-2020 framework”. (Coming up with that number required quite a bit of creativity, and I will return to the American position in a future blog.)
·      EU – “2CP in Exchange for a New- Deal-Roadmap!”   The EU is “open to a 2CP” but only if it is accompanied by a “robust roadmap” towards a new, wider agreement with legally binding emission reduction targets for all major economies. The negotiations for this new agreement should begin immediately and conclude in 2015 (in order to enter into force latest by 2020). The realistic prospect of a new, more comprehensive and legally binding treaty is a European condition for keeping the KP alive – the 2CP becomes a part of a transition strategy towards a new agreement. The EU has puzzled everyone by suggesting that the length of the 2CP under these conditions could be eight years (2013-2020) instead of five years.
·      AOSIS – “2CP for Annex I Countries from 2013-2017” – The Alliance of Small Island States insists on an ambitious 2CP that is no longer than five years in order to maintain the possibility of a global emissions peak before 2020 and the 2°C goal. They also argue that the 2CP should start no later than 2013, and that a new agreement should be ready to enter into force by the end of it (2018).
·      BASIC – “2CP for Annex I Countries!”   Since 2009 Brazil, South Africa, India and China have formed the BASIC coalition. They also demand a 2CP with more ambitious targets for Annex I countries, but have not mentioned any time preferences.
So in short, the story is called ‘everyone against the Umbrella Group,’ with the EU somewhere in-between. The options are:
1.     More of the same - a 2CP for Annex I countries,
2.     Start from scratch and take your time (negotiate a new deal),
3.     Stick with the KP while negotiating a new deal in a hurry.
The EU position is worth considering a little closer. Many observers were surprised by the unusually tough stance making the 2CP offer conditional on a “robust roadmap” towards a new agreement with legally binding obligations for all players, to be concluded by 2015. The proposal is a compromise between the demands of the developing world for more and immediate action by Annex I countries (and Annex I countries only), and the Umbrella Group’s call to drop the Kyoto Protocol for an unspecified “new climate regime” in the future. In typical EU fashion it is a very rational position, but it does not look very appealing to anybody else. The Europeans are deeply convinced that immediate action is needed, and that the KP is insufficient to achieve any meaningful climate target. Making European support for the 2CP conditional sends a very strong signal to the countries they call “major economies” (read BASIC, see below) that EU contributions to the future climate regime will not be free handouts. Conditionality is the European way to create some negotiation leverage and increase the pressure on other actors to up their game.
The developing countries are visibly upset by this strategy. They argue that the KP is about much more than emission reductions. Interestingly they do not seem terribly concerned about the fact that the KP is ineffective, and that a 2CP would not be able to limit global warming. What matters to them is the symbolism of a legally binding international agreement, the possibility to ramp up the Protocol’s ambition in the future, and the political deal enshrined in the Protocol, promising technology transfer, financial resources and capacity building support from the Global North for adaptation and mitigation efforts in the Global South. While different players within the South might be attached to different elements of this deal – e.g., AOSIS members depend on the promise of slowing climate change, the Least Developed Countries are keen to receive adaptation funding and developing countries are hopeful for technology transfer – collectively they have a strong interest in keeping the KP alive.
Now here are a couple of additional arguments to consider when thinking about the future of the KP:
·      When the treaty was signed in 1997 everyone thought that the US – at that point by far the largest emitter of greenhouse gases – would be on board. However, Congress never ratified the Protocol, and most likely never will. Consequently the KP today only covers around 20% of global emissions and is simply unable to solve the climate problem, 2CP or not.
·      Another difference between 1997 and 2011 is the economic size of the BASIC countries and consequently the share of their contribution to global carbon emissions. While it was a matter of course to label these countries as developing back then, the matter is less clear today, when China has surpassed the US as the largest global GHG emitter and India is catching up fast. Moving ahead on climate without significant contributions from the BASIC coalition does not make a lot of sense.
·      Finally, what the official positions above do not reveal is the fact that a number of developing countries that are pushing hard for 2CP for Annex I countries also have growing expectations of the BASIC members. So far they have not made an official statement with that demand, but they rightly want the emerging economies to take actions that reflect their growing emissions and global political weight. Once they step out of the G77 & China line, they could push BASIC closer to the European proposal.
The Game is on. Let’s see what the magic number will be 10 days from now. I think the closer it is to 2012 the better for all of us. Talking about 2020 in 2011 is simply irresponsible in the face of mounting scientific evidence that the window for keeping global the expected temperature increase below 2°C might be closing as soon as 2017.
If you stay tuned I’ll tell you about a “Plan C” for the Kyoto Protocol next time.

1 comment:

  1. Manjana: i am not convinced that any of this really matter any more! Why, because the ice sheets are already melting and so are the great areas of permafrost. As well, the Oceans are rapidly reaching saturation point for CO2 absorption. In other words,we have already passed the tipping point and the beast is trundling along picking-up speed and momentum all on its own. The human contribution is too small to have a significant effect. We need to move to the next step ASAP and I am not even sure what that will be.

    ReplyDelete