UN claims talks progress, despite finance, targets impasse
17 June, 2009
International negotiations for a post-2012 deal have stepped up a gear, UN climate chief Yvo de Boer claimed after two weeks of talks in Bonn this month – but he admitted that developed countries are still showing a lack of ambition on 2020 emissions cuts.
“This session has made clear what governments want to see in the Copenhagen agreement,” de Boer said at the end of talks in Bonn, which ran from 1–12 June. But, he added, there is “no question that industrialised countries need to raise their sights higher in terms of mid-term emissions cuts”.
He later said that the targets put forward so far by developed countries equate to a maximum aggregate cut of 24% below 1990 levels – but that does not include the US or Russia, “two very significant parties, which will impact the range”. He added that the negotiating process “would be greatly improved by progress on the issue of finance”.
Shyam Saran of the Indian delegation said that the targets being presented for post-2012 “are not on the scale needed” and slammed attempts by some nations, such as Japan, to alter the baseline year against which targets are measured. “Given the science, 40% [below 1990] seems to be a reasonable target,” he said.
“I hope they can increase their ambitions,” said Chinese negotiator Fei Teng of Japan’s pledge to cut its emissions by 15% compared with 2005 levels – which is around 8% below 1990 emissions. “They should set their target based on science and the principle of sharing the atmospheric space equally.”
Jonathan Pershing, the lead negotiator for the US, told reporters that: “We recognise and accept ... that the US has historical responsibility for the largest share of emissions going back,” and unveiled a proposal which would see developed countries commit to emissions cuts while developing countries commit to binding actions.
The two-week meeting also failed to make progress on the issue of finance for developing countries, although proposals from Mexico and Norway appear to be gaining traction. Mexico’s proposal would see all parties contribute to a central fund, based on a pre-agreed indicator such as GDP, while Norway has pushed for a percentage of allowances issued to governments with emissions caps to be auctioned – a controversial proposal that stalled wider reforms last December in Poznan, Poland.
Zhu Liucai, also from China’s negotiating team, told Carbon Finance that governments from developed countries must lead the way on finance for climate change adaptation, mitigation and technology transfer. “Public finance can play a catalytic role, to leverage the private sector ... If everything depends on the market itself, then why are we here?”
China has proposed that 0.5–1% of developed countries’ GDP each year
be put into a central fund to finance technology transfer, climate change
adaptation and mitigation measures, and capacity building in developing
nations.
Zhu noted that governments were able to find public
funds for economic stimulus packages, to the tune of 1–2% of GDP – more than
the cost to fight climate change. Failing to address climate change could cost
5% of GDP each year, he said, citing the Stern Review, a UK-government
commissioned study on the economics of climate change. China’s proposal
“would help with the green recovery”, Zhu added.
“Japan believes in the potential of the carbon market,” added Kuni Shimada, one of the principal negotiators for Japan. “Public financing needs to be scaled up, but we need to recognise the enormous role of the private sector,” which is crucial to secure a deal in Copenhagen and to ensure its implementation, he told Carbon Finance.
As the talks progressed, the text for the group dealing with long-term action under the convention (AWG-LCA) ballooned from 53 pages to more than 200. The text “is much bigger, much richer”, said LCA chairman Michael Zammit Cutajar, adding that discussions were “surprisingly calm – but of course there will be storms ahead”. Countries will start trying to cut the text down at the next meeting, in August, he said.
“Everyone has thrown everything but the kitchen sink in there,” said Andrei Marcu, senior adviser on climate and emissions trading at law firm Bennett Jones in Toronto, Canada. “It will now be a challenging job in August.” He added that there has been a lot of duplication of effort as the AWG-LCA talks remain separate from those under a track for parties to the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), as “people want to make sure everything is everywhere,” especially as there remains a lack of clarity over when the two tracks will merge.
And with the focus mostly on emissions targets and finance, little else got done, said Alex Sarac, general counsel for project developer EcoSecurities. “Everything was on hold as everyone was talking about the numbers – it’s very draining for the negotiators,” he said, adding that a couple of issues relating to reform of Kyoto’s project-based mechanisms could have been dealt with during the two weeks.
“The whole thing is frustrating, from the perspective of the mechanisms,” Sarac added, saying that some proposals on the table, such as a sector-based Clean Development Mechanism, are complex and need attention. “If offsetting and emissions trading are not being dealt with, we could lose the opportunity to engage with developing countries,” he said.
