Protests called a Global Day of Action, a march for action on climate change, in Durban, South Africa, on December 3, 2011. (Photo by: tcktcktck, Global Campaign for Climate Action)

By Climatico Contributor: Shira Honig

With the Durban climate change negotiations barely a week old, key countries are drawing their “red line” positions in the sand.

On one side of the line, where the Group of 77 (G77) + China and other developing countries firmly sit, is a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol that continues binding targets for current country signatories after the first period expires at the end of 2012 (excluding Canada, which has announced that it is pulling out of the treaty altogether). On the other is a European Union plan for a new global agreement with binding targets for all countries beginning in 2015 and in force by 2020.

Emerging today is the news that India has rejected the EU plan for a new treaty.

Leading up to Durban, the EU said it was willing to consider an extension of the current Kyoto Protocol commitments, in exchange for a broader international agreement to begin in 2015, with emerging economies under the same binding targets as western industrialized countries. Since the first day of the negotiations, Poland, who currently holds the revolving EU presidency, has clearly stated that a “Kyoto II” could be a part of a transition to a wider, post-Kyoto agreement.

Before India announced its opposition, China had already rejected the plan, saying that a new mandate before the Bali Roadmap was complete was “too much.” China, which so far has spoken on behalf of both the G77 and the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) – which has concerned some negotiators – remains firm in its opposition to binding cuts at the international level. It maintains that it is pressing ahead with ambitious national plans to cut emissions, increase energy efficiency and renewable production, and decrease deforestation.

India’s rejection of the EU plan brings the opposition level to three countries, including the United States. Like China, India maintains its current position of not committing to legally binding emissions cuts. The U.S. maintains its own position that China and India must accept legally binding cuts like other western countries. Only then would it consider a new treaty. In an interview, U.S. negotiator Jonathan Pershing deflected the issue, saying that until resistance from India and China to the EU plan abates, it is not prepared to take on legally binding obligations.

Meanwhile, in its own interviews, the EU has expressed frustration that its significant efforts to reduce emissions and provide climate finance – the most ambitious of western blocs and countries – have gone unrecognized. As in Copenhagen, where it was shut out of a final deal negotiated by the U.S. and the BASIC countries, it finds itself rejected again.

Without a move on these red-line positions from one country or another, a compromise deal is unlikely. Senior ministers and heads of state will join the negotiations on Dec. 6.

By Climatico Director: Paige Andrews

Canada takes first Fossil of the Day at COP17 (Source: Adopt a Negotiator)

On Monday, Environment Minister Peter Kent announced that Canada “will not make a second commitment to Kyoto.” In addition, Canada will no longer take steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and may begin to formally withdraw from the agreement next month. In place of the Protocol, Canada’s goal is for “a new international agreement, eventually binding, which would include all the major developed and developing emitters.”

Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol would make it the first nation to do so after its ratification. Although Kyoto provisions are set to expire at the end of 2012, this action on the part of Canada would demonstrate a symbolic blow to the UN climate process which has already been weakened by Party divisions.

The fate of Kyoto, the only legally binding accord that specifies reductions in greenhouse gases, has proven to be the source of much tension at the annual climate talks taking place through next week in Durban, South Africa.

Canada’s announcement angered poor nations who say that rich nations are reneging on pledges made when the protocol was signed 14 years ago.

“For countries that are historically responsible for the problem to explicitly back out would undermine the process and the credibility of what we are trying to do,” stated Seyni Nafo, spokesman for the Africa Group in Durban. “How are we to going to ask India and China to do more when Canada is saying, ‘OK, we’re checking out of the Kyoto Protocol?”

Since the election of Conservative Stephen Harper as Canada’s Prime Minister in 2006, Canada’s government has demonstrated weakening support for binding emissions reductions, stating that it had no intention of complying with Kyoto and arguing that it was too ambitious and not applied fairly.

“The Canadian government is looking for every escape possible to avoid the consequences of inaction in the face of dangerous climate change and to ensure they can expand the tar sands as projected,” said Hannah McKinnon of Climate Action Network Canada.

Canada’s announcement signifies a growing trend away from any agreement that fails to include big polluters such as the United States and China. In addition to Canada’s potential withdrawal, Japan and Russia have similarly confirmed that they will not renew their commitment to Kyoto and the European Union, a consistent supporter of the Protocol, has hinted that its continued support may be conditional.

Developed countries are not alone in their hesitation about the Protocol. China, the world’s leading greenhouse gas emitter, has also refused to commit to new binding targets, arguing that it wants to see developed countries to act first and follow through with their commitments.

“If we cannot get a decision for the future of the second commitment period, the whole international system on climate change will be placed in peril,” China’s lead negotiator Su Wei told news agencies. “If the Kyoto Protocol is devoid of any further commitment period, the Kyoto Protocol itself will be dead.”

The timing of Canada’s announcement on Day 1 of COP17 in Durban has led to questions about Canada’s role and credibility in the negotiations, as well as its ability to influence international policy.  Should other countries follow Canada’s lead, the talks in Durban may result in a series of voluntary pledges, rather than a legally-binding international agreement. 

EB at COP17, Durban. Source: UNFCCC

By Climatico Contributor: Roddy Boyd

The fate of the Clean Development Mechanism, the most robust and successful United Nations’ instrument to fight climate change, hangs in the balance at the 17^th Conference of the Parties. It risks being used as a negotiating ‘chip’ in the penultimate COP before the Kyoto Protocol’s (KP’s) first commitment period ends. A leading climate change NGO explained that the KP is expected to ‘emerge alive from the conference, but it will be on life support.”

Along with Japan, Russia and the United States who have all said that extending the commitments after 2012 is not possible without industrialised countries taking targets, it surfaced that Canada may even withdraw their ratification and participation in the KP before the end of this year: an accusation that they are yet to refute. If it is true, it could have wide ranging consequences for future negotiations.

Hurdles from ‘Further Commitments’

As we covered before Durban began, expectations of any successes with respect to the KP’s CDM and Joint Implementation were low. Even an acknowledgment that they may continue to live without the KP would be seen as an achievement.

It seemed, however, that whenever the Ad-hoc Working Group for the KP (AWG-KP) discussed ‘Further Commitments’, the rift between Annex I, emerging economies and non-Annex I countries was ever present.

Almost as a warning, many developing countries are pushing for another commitment period and highlighting that the CDM would not be possible without one, with the vulnerable Small Island States demanding a new commitment period within a year.

Even though the KP has no clear termination clause, any extension to its bodies and mechanisms will need UNFCCC COP approval. China and Brazil therefore stepped up to explain that it is ‘inconceivable’ to have the CDM [and JI] without the KP, and that they would vote to block such an extension. It was suggested that developing countries could end up ‘restricting access’ to CDM offsets if a second commitment period is not reached.

Because China represents around 60% of the total offsets issued so far and to some extent drives the price with its floor price for CERs, this move would worry investors in the CDM by facing large degrees of uncertainty on its future. Already, record low market prices and risks from limitations on what CERs are accepted for compliance under the EU ETS are driving interest elsewhere.

The EU has also been involved with discussing potential ‘new’ market mechanisms for offsetting emissions, by using ‘national policy baselines’ as a means to standardise and measure offsets from national emission trajectories. In doing so, Japan’s case for a non-UNFCCC mechanism could become possible.

Executive Board Reports

Meanwhile, the COP listened to an update on progress from the CDM regulatory body, the Executive Board. As well as explaining the EB’s successful efforts to streamline approval processes, generate simpler additionality guidelines, and continue work on standardised baselines for methodologies, the EB chair reiterated that uncertainty surrounding the CDM post-2012 is potentially a crippling factor to progress.

In an effort to encourage deployment of the CDM to the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), a CDM loan scheme was launched this week, expected to be operational within a few months. It was first discussed in Copenhagen COP15 negotiations, and now has a fund around $4.4 million (USD). For countries that have less than 10 registered projects registered in the CDM, loans can be provided to projects in order to cover their feasibility studies, validation and registration expenses which can sometimes lead into the tens of thousands of USD.

The move can be seen as a positive one, in that it could kick start many new CDM projects. The EU is a strong supporter of LDC CERs. After 2012, strict limitations will mean only certain types of CERs will be allowed for compliance in the emissions trading scheme – those from LDCs being eligible until 2020.

As the CDM moves slowly forward, negotiations look like the KP is having a smaller and smaller impact. As Point Carbon points out, if the US had ratified the KP in the first place, the KP may have covered half of the world’s emissions. Without the US, and adding other Annex I countries like Japan, Russia and Canada along with many non-Annex I followers to the list of non-KP supporters, a second commitment period could potentially see only 15% of the world’s emissions. This means that the scope of the CDM could reduce dramatically.

If the CDM is seen in isolation from the KP, further work on its life post-2012 could be possible. At the moment, further commitments (nevertheless) bring the COP to a standstill.