11

KYOTO PROTOCOL: KYOTO PROTOCOL: UPDATE ON ACTIVITIES UPDATE ON ACTIVITIES

OF THE AD HOC OF THE AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON WORKING GROUP ON

FURTHER COMMITMENTS FURTHER COMMITMENTS FOR ANNEX I PARTIES FOR ANNEX I PARTIES

UNDER THE KP. UNDER THE KP.

PRESENTED BY SETH OSAFOPRESENTED BY SETH OSAFOAMCEN LEGAL CONSULTANT TO AFRICAN NEGOTIATORS,AMCEN LEGAL CONSULTANT TO AFRICAN NEGOTIATORS,

UNFCCC AND KYOTO PROTOCOLUNFCCC AND KYOTO PROTOCOL

22

KYOTO PROTOCOLKYOTO PROTOCOL Kyoto Protocol adopted in December 1997 Kyoto Protocol adopted in December 1997

at COP 3 in Kyoto.at COP 3 in Kyoto.

Under the Protocol, the Annex I Parties Under the Protocol, the Annex I Parties committed themselves to achieve emission committed themselves to achieve emission reduction targets by reducing their overall reduction targets by reducing their overall emissions of six greenhouse gases by an emissions of six greenhouse gases by an average of 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels average of 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels between 2008-2012 (the first commitment between 2008-2012 (the first commitment period). Specific targets differed from period). Specific targets differed from country to country.country to country.

33

The Protocol entered into force on 16 February 2005 The Protocol entered into force on 16 February 2005

and now has more than 184 parties.and now has more than 184 parties.

In 2005,COP/MOP 1, held in Montreal established In 2005,COP/MOP 1, held in Montreal established the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Further the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Further commitments of Annex I Parties pursuant to Article commitments of Annex I Parties pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 9 of the Kyoto Protocol. The mandate 3, paragraph 9 of the Kyoto Protocol. The mandate given to the Ad hoc Working Group was to consider given to the Ad hoc Working Group was to consider the commitments of the Annex I Parties for the commitments of the Annex I Parties for subsequent commitment periods (first commitment subsequent commitment periods (first commitment period end in 2012) at least seven years before the period end in 2012) at least seven years before the end of the first commitment period. (Second end of the first commitment period. (Second commitment period begins in 2013)commitment period begins in 2013)

44

Some of the issues being discussed by the Ad hoc Some of the issues being discussed by the Ad hoc

Working Group include the following:Working Group include the following: Proposed amendments to the Kyoto Protocol pursuant to Proposed amendments to the Kyoto Protocol pursuant to

Article 3, paragraph 9 involving Annex I emission Article 3, paragraph 9 involving Annex I emission reductions;reductions;

The aggregate scale of emission reductions by Annex I The aggregate scale of emission reductions by Annex I Parties, the contributions by Parties individually or jointly Parties, the contributions by Parties individually or jointly to the aggregate scaleto the aggregate scale

Issues identified in paragraph 49 of its conclusions and this Issues identified in paragraph 49 of its conclusions and this includes: the flexibility mechanisms, LULUCF, greenhouse includes: the flexibility mechanisms, LULUCF, greenhouse gases, sectors and sources, potential consequences of tools, gases, sectors and sources, potential consequences of tools, policies, measures and methodologies, aviation and bunker policies, measures and methodologies, aviation and bunker fuels, and legal matters,fuels, and legal matters,

55

ANNEX I EMISSION REDUCTION ANNEX I EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETSTARGETS

The ad hoc working group has been The ad hoc working group has been considering the individual and aggregate considering the individual and aggregate emission reduction targets of Annex I emission reduction targets of Annex I Parties.Parties.

Instead of coming out with their common Instead of coming out with their common and agreed targets, individual Parties and agreed targets, individual Parties included in Annex I have been coming included in Annex I have been coming out with their own targets, with some out with their own targets, with some making pledges with underlying making pledges with underlying assumptions.assumptions.

66

NEW ZEALANDNEW ZEALAND: Mid term target of : Mid term target of

reducing emissions by 10-20% below reducing emissions by 10-20% below 1990 levels by 2020. (Depends on the 1990 levels by 2020. (Depends on the assumption that there will be recourse to assumption that there will be recourse to the flexibility mechanism and carbon the flexibility mechanism and carbon markets due to the high cost of domestic markets due to the high cost of domestic mitigation.)mitigation.)

JAPANJAPAN: National target of reducing : National target of reducing emissions by 15% from 2005 levels by emissions by 15% from 2005 levels by 2005. target did not include flexibility 2005. target did not include flexibility mechanisms and LULUCF.mechanisms and LULUCF.

77

CANADACANADA: Reduction of 20% from 2006 by : Reduction of 20% from 2006 by 2020. A mid term target of 60-70% relative to 2020. A mid term target of 60-70% relative to 2006 by 2050.2006 by 2050.

RUSSIAN FEDERATIONRUSSIAN FEDERATION: Reduction of 10-: Reduction of 10-20% by 2020 from 1990 levels.20% by 2020 from 1990 levels.

BELARUSBELARUS: Reduction of 5-10 from 1990 : Reduction of 5-10 from 1990 levels by 2020.levels by 2020.

NORWAYNORWAY: Reduction of 30% from 1990 : Reduction of 30% from 1990 levels by 2020, with LULUCF accounting for levels by 2020, with LULUCF accounting for 3-6%.3-6%.

88

EUROPEAN UNIONEUROPEAN UNION: Reduction of at least 20% : Reduction of at least 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 and by 30% if other below 1990 levels by 2020 and by 30% if other developed countries commit themselves to developed countries commit themselves to comparable emission reductions. Economically more comparable emission reductions. Economically more advanced developing countries should also contribute advanced developing countries should also contribute adequately according to their responsibilities and adequately according to their responsibilities and capabilities.capabilities.

AUSTRALIAAUSTRALIA: Reduction by 25% at 2000 levels by : Reduction by 25% at 2000 levels by 2020 if the Parties agree to an ambitious global deal.2020 if the Parties agree to an ambitious global deal.

USAUSA: Not a Party to the Kyoto Protocol but : Not a Party to the Kyoto Protocol but proposing zero per cent reduction below 1990 levels proposing zero per cent reduction below 1990 levels by 2020.Proposal by US House Representatives for a by 2020.Proposal by US House Representatives for a reduction target of 1 to 4 per cent below 1990 levels reduction target of 1 to 4 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. by 2020.

99

Developing countries are calling for deeper Developing countries are calling for deeper and ambitious reduction targets by Annex I and ambitious reduction targets by Annex I Parties.Parties.

Africa has proposed a cut of 40% by 2020 at Africa has proposed a cut of 40% by 2020 at 1990 levels at a cut of 80% by 2050.1990 levels at a cut of 80% by 2050.

Bolivia, Venezuela, Paraguay, Malaysia and Bolivia, Venezuela, Paraguay, Malaysia and Sri Lanka have proposed that Annex I Parties Sri Lanka have proposed that Annex I Parties at their emission by 49% at 1990 levels in the at their emission by 49% at 1990 levels in the commitment period of 2013-2017.commitment period of 2013-2017.

AOSIS : Reduction of at least 45% below AOSIS : Reduction of at least 45% below 1990 levels by 2020 and more than 95% below 1990 levels by 2020 and more than 95% below 1990 levels 2050.1990 levels 2050.

1010

At the just ended session in Bangkok where it At the just ended session in Bangkok where it appears Parties were now settling down for appears Parties were now settling down for serious negotiations , the European Union and serious negotiations , the European Union and other developed country Parties came out to other developed country Parties came out to say that they want to KILL THE KYOTO say that they want to KILL THE KYOTO PROTOCOL AND REPLACE IT WITH PROTOCOL AND REPLACE IT WITH ANOTHER PROTOCOL WHICH THE US ANOTHER PROTOCOL WHICH THE US COULD JOIN.COULD JOIN.

1111

MAJOR OUTSTANDING ISSUESMAJOR OUTSTANDING ISSUES

Interpretation of mandate-whether narrow Interpretation of mandate-whether narrow or broad and what issues to include in or broad and what issues to include in amendments to the Kyoto Protocol;amendments to the Kyoto Protocol;

Whether to focus only on amendment to Whether to focus only on amendment to Annex B of the Protocol .Annex B of the Protocol .

Differentiation among Parties with a new Differentiation among Parties with a new category of advanced developing countries category of advanced developing countries to be created .to be created .

POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF THE WORK OF THE AWG-KP

Best case scenario Amendment to Annex B plus the consequential

amendments.

Amendment to Annex B plus other amendments to the Kyoto Protocol (flexible mechanisms, CDM,JI.ET.LULUCF, Compliance, responses measures.

New Protocol to replace the Kyoto Protocol-if amendments extensive.

Worst case scenario No agreement-nothing happens but action

of second commitment period delayed.

POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF THE WORK OF THE AWGLCA

Several COP decisions on issues being addressed under the Bali Action Plan,

No amendments to Convention possible at Copenhagen due to six months rule. A process could be set in motion to consider amendment proposals to be adopted at a future date.

A new Protocol adopted in accordance with Article 17 of the Convention to replace the Kyoto Protocol based on Parties submissions.

Some kind of agreement that will cover issues on which agreement has been reached with a mandate to use it as basis for negotiating a new treaty.

A simple decision to suspend COP 16 and CMP 5 and for the Conferences to resume at COP 15bis and CMP 5bis

Deadlock and no outcome possible- but face saving measure will be needed.