Outcomes from Climate Change discussions in COP 17

Tuesday, 20 December 2011

Kyoto Protocol

One can confront here two visions in the interpretation of the final outcome regarding KP: “a protocol, legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force” which is to be adopted no later than 2015 but won't come into force until 2020.

On the one hand, one can say that it is a revival of KP with the establishment of a second commitment period and the launch of a new process towards an agreed outcome with legal force applicable to all parties to the Convention.

On the other hand, by 2015, scientists stated that having a treaty which came into force only in 2020 will likely support the continuation of global warming on a pathway of over 3°C warming with likely extremely severe impacts. The new climate treaty, to be negotiated by 2015, would not take effect until 2020 but would include all major emitters of greenhouse gases — including the U.S., China, India and Brazil — under a single agreement with as yet unspecified legal implications. The scientific body of the UNFCCC, IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), will release its next recommendations in 2014, but keeping a limitation of 2 °C warming means an urgent scale up of ambition level and drastic cuts in emission reductions.

Throughout the conference there were disagreements between the US, India and China over the respective responsibilities of developed versus developing countries in reducing carbon emissions known as differentiated responsibilities. This new road map indicates the end of the historical responsibilities of Annex 1 countries (Developed countries).

In the meantime, current parties to the KP – including the European Union but with the notable exceptions of Canada, Japan and Russia which sadly decided to withdraw from the protocol — agreed to continue honoring their commitments for a period of 5-8 years beyond the current pact’s expiration in 2012. Therefore, what we could have called, “second commitment period” lost biggest its emitters. Vulnerable and least developed countries, who are the unfortunate victims of global warming mentioned that KP lost in Durban, its lawfulness.

The 190 countries of the convention have now until 2015 to agree on a comprehensive and ambitious deal. Achieving this, mean hard negotiations in the years to come, and delaying actions might only force more drastic cuts in carbon emissions later if worst case scenarios of a 2-4 degree increase in global temperatures are to be avoided.

Green Fund

The green fund brought more hope as the parties settled upon a design for the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The principle was agreed last year in Cancun implying wealthier nations to provide financial support to poorer nations for their environmental projects to face adaptation issues and capacity building in achieving resilient institutional answers. Parties officially consent to the operationalization of a new body knows as the GCF. It will be conferred juridical personality and legal capacity to the GCF’s Board and will not be linked to World Bank as USA proposed previously.

The GCF is recognized as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention, with arrangements to be concluded between at COP 18. To be efficient, this fund must be accountable to and would function under the guidance of the COP to support projects, programs, policies and other activities in developing country parties. Finally, it can be noted that although the Fund is supposed to make up to $100 billion available by 2020, no funds were committed.

What about Laos?

Points made by Mr Akham Tounalom, Vice Minister of Natural Resources and Environment at Durban on Thursday 1st of December.

Mr Tounalom, mentioned that Lao PDR was not spared by climate change effects and recorded an increase of severe droughts and floods during the last years. The vice minister affirmed the urgency of the situation which needs international answers and claimed for “effective and immediate actions”. Therefore, Lao PDR, enhanced their full commitment to find agreement for a second KP period and urge parties to come to an “historical agreement” in Durban.

It was as well mentioned that international negotiations need to be lead by the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”. Part of this, Lao PDR has identified actions to cope with mitigation and adaptation need, through the NAMA (nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions) and works toward a “low carbon economy”.

The government of Lao PDR continues to formulate new policies to comply with emission reductions, such as the exploration of renewable energy and the use of hydropower. Due to its context, most attention is given to forest resources, by achieving the ambitious target of 70% forestry coverage of Lao PDR’s national territory by 2020. Regarding this topic, Lao PDR asked for a “legally binding agreement” for REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing countries, including conservation). Finally, his Excellency Mr Tounalom mentioned the need for a special fund (green fund) to support, especially Least Developed Countries (LDC) in the implementation of mitigation and adaptation actions to fight climate change.

What to understand?

The poor outcomes from Durban will probably not enable LDCs to face and adapt quickly to climate change effects while pursuing their objectives of development. Although the green fund moved positively, available funds remain for the moment pledges. The promised fund agreed in Copenhagen, the “Fast Start Finance”, shaped to support urgent and immediate actions did not match initial pledges. Few A1 countries mentioning that they had to review their strategy due to the length of the economic crisis.

By having only a voluntary based KP and funds limited in the years to come, Durban saw an emergence of local actions and bilateral agreements. This international assistance raised question marks in term of equity and fairness, as only countries who knows can have access to this “extra” source of financing. Hence the role of inclusive network, with civil society organization working toward a national development might be reinforced. After the new turn of the convention, the challenge for developing countries like Laos will be to implement first their NAPAs (which are driven under the LDC fund, manage by the Global Environment Facility - GEF) and then to properly manage their NAMAs which are based on an “bottom up” approach and not result oriented. Another direction to look at, has been initiated by few developing countries like Gabon, which skips this stage by a direct drafting of a “National Climate Action Plan”. It consists in the integration of environment issues in all strategic sectors, therefore adaptation and mitigation costs are integrated to long term objectives (could be partially or 100% self financed under their national development strategy). To look at the facts, most developing countries are depending on international funds when speaking about environment. Is mainly the case for Lao PDR, although a Climate Change Office has been set up, further collaboration is needed to strengthen institutional capacity and technology transfer to NAMAs completion. The case of Lao PDR belongs to a special category due to its national context. Laos is not a heavy emitting country, thanks to the rich forest resources, and it is considered, the opposite, as a CO2 sink. It means that Laos’s strategy is based on the vital role played by forests in mitigating greenhouse gases and adapting to climate change. Conscious of this advantage, Lao PDR is part of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations. This group, with the objective of “country collaboration to reconcile forest stewardship with economic development”, is extremely active on the REDD + and LULUCF (Land use, land-use change and forestry) negotiations.

The REDD+, made mixed progress during the Durban talks. Significant questions remain, firstly about financing, secondly about safeguards. Indeed, although a consensus was found on reference levels concerned raised about the weakness of the mechanism to prevent abuse.

Finally regarding the LULUCF which is negotiated under a sub-group of KP, progresses were as well made, leading to a more comprehensive accounting methodology from LULUCF. However, one should keep in mind the new “voluntary” dimension of KP.

The COP 17, will probably not be remembered as an historical breakthrough. Nonetheless, it underlined the limits of international treaties and will push countries, including developing countries like Lao PDR, to be more independent as actions cannot wait international consensus. By not acting today, A1 countries are endorsing heavy responsibilities that they will eventually face tomorrow. All countries must embrace a comprehensive and inclusive strategy to face inevitable climate change effects. For developing countries this strategy should be shaped around the adaptation pillar, in order to better protect their vulnerable communities. In order to support them, governments can rely on bilateral partnership but foremost on intern resources, providing as well by Civil Society Organisations.

LIRE was extremely pleased to strengthen its skills through the participation to this high level meeting and hopes that this first step will be followed by new programs aiming at better supporting Lao PDR in its climate change strategy.