Binding commitments for whom?

When the Parties to the Climate Convention agreed in 1995 in Berlin to negotiate a greenhouse gas reduction protocol, the mandate specified that it would only apply to the 37 so-called Annex I countries, i.e. OECD countries and Central and Eastern European states with economies in transition. These 37 countries are currently responsible for more than 50 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, compared to the other 142 Parties to the Climate Convention who participate in the negotiations. Developing countries are adamant that the protocol bring them no new commitments until Annex I countries have actually started reducing their disproportionate emissions, particularly since the entire Framework Convention on Climate Change is based on the principle of `common but differentiated responsibi-lities'. They are generally pushing for higher targets for Annex I countries than the latter are willing to consider. On the other hand, the United States' long-awaited global climate change proposal states that the US `will not adopt binding obligations without developing country participation'. Other Annex I countries have also indicated that Kyoto must at least begin a process towards non-Annex I countries' taking on binding commit-ments, if not in the protocol then as part of the review of the `adequacy of existing commitments' under Article 4.1 of the Convention itself. Brazil has tabled a pro-posal where the largest developing country economies would commit to greenhouse gas reductions at a later stage if the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by Annex I countries proves successful.

Targets and timetables

The European Union, whose proposal is the most ambitious, plans to meet its targets through a burden-sharing arrangement between its member states, where the most advanced economies take on larger reduction commitments than the poorer nations, in order to reach a net reduction of EU emissions of the combination of three greenhouse gases. However, it has so far resisted extending this `differentiated approach' to other countries (as proposed by Japan, for instance), insisting rather on a fixed `flat rate' reduction across the board. The EU has also made clear that it will not undertake the 15% by 2010 reduction commitment if other countries opt for lower targets.

Policies and measures

There is also considerable disagreement on ways to reach whatever targets are adopted. The EU is advocating that policies and measures be spelled out in the protocol while other countries would like to include them in an annex  or possibly not at all. Two alternative lists were forwarded to Kyoto, with a footnote specifying that G-77/China see the avoidance of adverse effects on developing countries regarding inter-national trade and social, environmen-tal and economic impacts linked to the establishment of `a compensation fund and a clean development fund'.

The US reduction proposal (starting from 2008-2012) relies heavily on market mechanisms, particularly the establishment of an international emissions trading system and joint implementation. There is no consensus on including either of these options in the protocol. Should a system of tradable permits be set up, further contention is in store on several issues, including whether countries/industries should be allowed to `bank' reductions achieved before the system starts functioning. It is  also unclear in which country's emissions budget the `credits' would be counted in cases where reductions happen in foreign subsidiaries of firms. Joint implementation faces similar `accounting' problems, as well as considerable resistance from developing countries which view it as an easy way for Annex I countries to meet their commitments by shifting their reduction burdens to developing country partners through the back door. (See also related story on page 2 and pointers for Kyoto on page 14.)

Informal meetings were being held practically daily around the world after the last preparatory session in order to break the deadlock before the Kyoto conference. According to government spokespersons, a gathering of key governments on 8 and 10 November produced encouraging signs. The UK's Deputy Minister for the Environment, John Prescott, said the negotiations were starting to move `in a small way, but definitely in the right direction. We are now all seriously looking at what might constitute agreement.' Behind the scenes discussions were also rumoured on possible future commitments of developing countries to binding targets and timetables. Such commitments, however, would not be part of the Kyoto protocol.

With the definition of the US position, all the main cards are on the table. The parameters of a deal among developed countries on a target and timetable for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are set. The key political unknown is whether the target will be uniform or differentiated.

The content of the basket of greenhouse gases to be controlled has not been defined. Some countries would like add three new gases to the basic three (CO2, methane and nitrous oxide). The treatment of carbon sequestration by sinks is also still open. These factors have important and different effects on the level of effort involved for different countries in reaching a given reduction target.

While a five-year budget is emerging as the agreed means of describing a target, discussion continues on the means of achieving targets (policies and measures, banking and borrowing, credits from joint implementation projects, emission trading).