 |
|
|
Too Painful For Some |
|
By Cat Lazaroff
Environmental News Service
THE HAGUE, The Netherlands, - A package deal to rescue international climate change negotiations looks set to fail.
Faced with what he called stagnation in talks at the 6th Conference of Parties (COP 6) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, conference president Jan Pronk circulated a note last night to generate momentum.
With 24 hours left to salvage agreement, Pronk presented a streamlined set of proposals that he admitted would cause pain to all sides. But, the plan was balanced and worth making concessions for, he told delegates. Judging by reaction from some, the pain will be too much to bear. "We have to ensure that this strategy fails," French Environment Minister Dominique Voynet told journalists. European Union Environment Commissioner, Margot Wallstrom said the paper was unacceptable. "Mr Pronk's paper gives us the elements for the final phase of the negotiations. But what is proposed does not respect our bottom line, which is to ensure that the environmental integrity and credibility of the Kyoto Protocol are safeguarded," said Wallstrom. "There is some very hard work ahead of us over the next 24 hours if we are to get a deal." For almost two weeks, government ministers from more than 160 countries have been negotiating how the world should respond to global warming and climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that by the end of this century, greenhouse gas emissions will cause world temperatures to increase by 1.5 to 6.1 degrees Celsius. The IPCC consists of more than 2,500 scientists from around the world, and its first assessment report in 1990 was used as the basis for negotiating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Faced with these forecasts, the international community agreed at the UN Climate Change Convention in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to prevent the harmful effects of climate change, such as desertification, melting of polar ice caps and rising sea levels. The world's leaders moved a step closer to this goal in 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, where they agreed to a protocol that set targets and timetables for emissions reductions by developed nations. The Kyoto Protocol covers six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride. Under the Protocol, 39 industrialized nations must cut their greenhouse gas emissions to an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012. But the Protocol will not take effect until it is ratified by 55 percent of the nations emitting at least 55 percent of the six greenhouse gases. If the Protocol is to be ratified and implemented by April 2002, the 10 year anniversary of the Rio convention, world leaders have until Saturday to decide how they will reach their Kyoto targets.
Such mechanisms include the Clean Development Mechanism - a way to earn credits by investing in emission reduction projects in developing countries; International Emissions Trading, which would permit industrialized countries to buy and sell emission credits among themselves; and Joint Implementation - a way to earn credits by investing in emission reduction projects in a developed country that has taken on a Kyoto target. Since trees absorb CO2, some countries argue they should be allowed to count existing forests and newly planted forests in reaching emissions targets. Pronk's proposal Under Pronk's proposal, the European Union would have to concede its goal of securing a quantitative cap on industrialized countries' freedom to use the protocol's flexible mechanisms for reducing emissions. Instead, Pronk suggests simply restating that reductions should be made "primarily through domestic action since 1990." The "facilitative branch" of a planned protocol compliance body would then "advise" on how countries can achieve this. A first assessment of progress would not be made until 2005. On sinks, industrialized countries would be allowed limited use of "additional activity" sinks, such as carbon absorption by agricultural and forestry management practices to offset emission reduction commitments. Countries would only be allowed to claim credits up to a maximum of three percent of their 1990 baseline emissions. The European Union wants no allowable counting of sinks before 2012, but the plan is considerably stricter than an earlier proposal by the U.S., Canada and Japan, which would allow America to claim credits for up to nine percent of its forestry carbon absorption and other countries up to 30 percent. On the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), industrialized countries would have to ensure that any project they support in a developing country is "sustainable" in line with the funder's national sustainability strategy. But, nuclear power projects would be explicitly excluded from the scheme and priority would be given for renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives. Small scale hydropower is the only explicitly mentioned renewable energy type. Large scale hydropower, meaning big dams, would not be excluded. Countries would be allowed to gain CDM credits by sponsoring afforestation and reforestation projects to acts as sinks in developing countries. Initiatives which simply prevent deforestation and land degradation would not. But, these would qualify for priority funding under a climate change adaptation fund. On emissions trading, no quantitative cap would be placed on the right of countries to buy emission credits to meet their reduction commitments. But no country would be able to sell more than 30 percent of its allowable emissions during the 2008-2012 commitment period of the protocol. This "seller's cap" is aimed at reducing sales of surplus "hot air" credits from eastern Europe, which some worry could threaten the CDM. The European Union wants a five percent cap. On funding, a climate change adaptation fund for developing countries would be financed by placing a two percent levy on the value of all emission reduction credits generated by CDM projects. A second fund would be created under the UN-managed Global Environment Facility for technology transfer and capacity building. Industrialized countries would also increase funding through other channels, to reach US$1 billion annually, not later than 2005. If the sum did not reach this level, a levy would be placed on emissions trading. On compliance, if any industrialized country has emissions in 2008-12 above their allowance, it would be forced to make up the gap in a second commitment period when tougher emission reduction targets are expected to be agreed. A penalty of 1.5 percent of the surplus emissions would also be deducted from its emission allowance in the second period, rising by 0.25 percentage points if countries failed to meet their commitments a second time. Emission allowances for the second commitment period would have to be agreed before 2008, so it would be understood whether a penalty for non-compliance in the first period would apply. Some European delegates believe that Pronk's proposals, particularly the liberal use of flexible mechanisms, effectively halves the Kyoto target for emissions cuts from 5.2 percent to 2.2 percent. Pronk's suggestion that reductions be made "primarily" through domestic action is seen as vague by European observers, who feel tougher wording is needed to safeguard the Kyoto Protocol's environmental integrity. While delegates are expected to continue talking late into the night, many environmental groups have already issued their verdicts on COP 6. "The Pronk deal is junk," said Friends of the Earth International's Frances MacGuire. "In fact, it will render the Kyoto Treaty less an agreement on the environment than a squalid deal on international trade. V "The very countries and companies which created the disaster of man made climate change are now maneuvring to profit from it. Unless major changes are made at the 11th hour, many people will pay with their lives, homes and jobs for this second rate stitch up." Under a statement entitled "Six reasons why the deal is junk," Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) claims the U.S. has been given a "free gift" of at least 50 million carbon tonnes a year towards their Kyoto Targets, by counting CO2 sequestered in existing forests and farmlands. The group claims that even on a strict reading of the Pronk text, emissions would be allowed to rise by more than five percent - the exact opposite of the Kyoto Protocol, which set a world reduction target of 5.2 percent. The Pronk proposal gives the U.S. exactly what it sought on compliance, said the group, referring to the requirement that countries failing to meet their Kyoto targets in the first commitment period add to their targets in the next. The EU demand for strict financial penalties has been dropped, complained the group. "The U.S. and its allies have been the clear victors, the European Union and the world's climate, the losers," said FOEI's Roger Higman. Today, FOEI organized a demonstration outside European Union offices, giving Ministers symbolic sandbags and urging them to stay firm. Greenpeace International echoed calls for the European Union to stand firm in the final hours of negotiations. "The European Union must make sure the U.S. does not drive a coach and horses through this agreement," said Greenpeace in a statement. Delegates have until Saturday afternoon to reach agreement. |
President of France, Jacques Chirac, Queen Beatrix, Wim Kok, Prime Minister of the Netherlands and United Nations USG for Economic and Social Affairs Nitin Desai at COP 6
© 1997-2000 BEI