Climate Rescue Package Too Painful For Some
THE HAGUE, The Netherlands, November 24, 2000 (ENS) - 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.
A sandbag sits center stage. It was taken from a symbolic dike
built around the Hague Conference Center over the last two weeks.
The 15 member European Union wants at least 50 percent of
countries' emission reduction commitments to be met through
domestic action, a view opposed by the United States, Canada,
Japan and Australia. These countries have been arguing for
greater use of carbon sinks and flexibility mechanisms designed
to make meeting Kyoto's targets easier and cheaper to bare.
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.
The arrival of Jan Pronk's note at the Hague Conference Center
last night.
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.
"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.
Dutch police arrested 11 Greenpeace activists for setting of an
alarm, the same volume as a plane taking off.
"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.
SOURCE: Environment News Service (ENS)
****************************************************************
To post a submission by email at climate-newswire@sidsnet.org
To unsubscribe, email to majordomo@sidsnet.org with the message:
unsubscribe climate-newswire
To receive updates via email, send an email to majordomo@sidsnet.org with the message:
subscribe climate-newswire
No SUBJECTS required either case.
Brought to you on the SMALL Island Developing States Network: http://www.sidsnet.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Nov 27 2000 - 15:46:24 EST