Article by Guest Contributor: Elizabeth Anderson

This week on UNFCCC Young and Future Generations Day in Cancun, young people across Britain set out a demand that their needs should be reflected in energy policy for the UK, by the prioritisation of renewable energy plants in capital investment.  A report to the UK Department for Energy and Climate Change, written by the department’s Youth Advisory Panel, demonstrated 94% of young people surveyed by the Panel believe that renewable energy is the ‘fairest’ means of providing for the country’s energy needs.  The report also set out the vital need to ensure that young people continue to be consulted on energy issues – as those who will live with the consequences of decisions implemented now, we must be involved in that decision-making process.

As a 25 year old member of the Panel, made up of sixteen 16-25 year olds, I, like the other panel members, recognised the need to maintain an open mind on all forms of energy.  Formed at the request of young people but with the need for such input recognised by the government, the Panel set out to learn about each the main types of energy provision available within the UK and Europe, in order to weigh up the potential costs and benefits of each.  With organisations represented including the UK Youth Climate Coalition (my own), UNICEF and Friends of the Earth, the Panel undertook a unique learning process – visiting a range of supply and demand outlets.  Visits included coal and nuclear power stations, energy conferences, low-energy housing options and construction projects.

The role of the Panel is to provide a coherent and representative voice of youth within the UK, offering a window of intergenerational dialogue between government and young people.  Through regular consultation, the Panel has been able to engage with hundreds of other young people throughout the country in order to act as a check on our work.

Linking with the DECC Energy Calculator, the report set out practical and realistic recommendations for action to be taken by the UK Government.  A key task highlighted by the report was the continuing development of the National Grid to ensure the most efficient delivery of new technology, as well as pushing ahead with the SMART Grid.  Further than this, the report stated the need for the UK to take a lead in developing the European SuperGrid to ensure that the potential for export of British energy – powered by renewables – can be realised.  Renewables offer a huge opportunity for the development of industry and skills within the UK.

Offshore wind presents a massive opportunity, and further research and development into floating turbine technology is essential.  The report calls for regulation of the industry in order to provide clear guidance and certainty to those wishing to invest in the industry, in order to mitigate concerns on risk.

Biomass must continue to be carefully regulated, with minimum FSC certification.  Biofuel should form a minimal part in the energy mix to prevent the rise in deforestation across the globe.
Unabated coal fired power stations should be phased out by 2015, with urgent investment in CCS to establish its feasibility within the next two years.  In terms of new power stations, gas should be given priority over other fossil fuels, but the development of gas or nuclear stations should not detract from investment in cleaner and fairer renewable technology. Clear legacy planning must be set out now for the decommissioning of nuclear plants – looking ahead to at least 150 years, rather than the end of the current Parliament.

Hugely important is to reduce the level of energy demand – both by domestic users and industry.  Construction planning must be carbon efficient, with priority given for housing developments meeting PassiveHaus standards.  In addition, incentivisation should be given to those wishing to retrofit, with zero-VAT rating on home improvements meeting suitable energy efficiency criteria.  Support must be provided in order to increase micro-generation on a house by house basis.

Above all, the report provides a basis for the continuing work of the Youth Panel, in order to maintain the intergenerational connection between the youth of today – the energy users of 2050 – and Government.  The Panel hopes to continue the debate and complete further work on other areas of climate change and energy use.

Elizabeth Anderson is a representative at COP16 with the UK Youth Climate Coalition (http://ukycc.org/). For further information contact Elizabeth at: elizabeth@ukycc.org

Article by Guest Contributor: Colleen Marie Gibson

On day two of COP16, the Japanese delegation announced that it does not intend to extend the existing Kyoto protocol.  The protocol was enacted in Japan on 21 March 1994, and began its reporting period of the framework from 2008-2012. There are over 194 countries participating in the protocol, and an extension needs to be agreed upon by participating countries to continue with the framework that has already been developed.

If an extension is not agreed upon, there is considerable concern over the fate of the credits for the UN Clean Development Mechanism.  Currently the credits are traded with an estimated value of $2.7 billion.  This funding provides financing for developing nations to use towards there renewable energy projects.

Japan believes a brand new agreement needs to be made because the Kyoto protocol only binds 37 developed countries.  They want a world treaty to include The United States which never ratified the treaty, and China which isn’t currently legally bound to the agreement because it’s a developing country. It is believed that Japan has an alternative plan that they want to implement which would bind China and the US to the agreement.   The international environmental community will have their eyes turned towards Japan over the next two weeks to see if an extension agreement can be met.

Delegates to the Tawara Climate Chance Conference (Image by: Government of Kiribati)

Article by Guest Contributor: Natalie Antonowicz

Held in Kiribati from 9 to 10 November, the Tawara Climate Change Conference produced the Ambo Declaration, which was signed by Australia, Brazil, China, Cuba, Fiji, Japan, Kiribati, Maldives, Marshall Island, New Zealand, Solomon Islands and Tonga. Although Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States also attended the conference, they chose to adopt observer status, and did not sign the declaration.

Other observers in attendance included representatives from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, UNFCCC and the World Bank. NGOs present included Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). This demonstrates significant attention to the issue from both intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations.

The Tawara Conference represents the second meeting of the Climate Vulnerable Forum, or V11, created in 2009, as part of the Bandos Island Declaration, which was signed in the Maldives in 2009. The V11 comprises Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Ghana, Kenya, Kiribati, the Maldives, Nepal, Rwanda, Tanzania and Vietnam. These small island states and least developed countries are especially vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change. They are also among the states least capable of adapting to the effects of environmental degradation.

In addition to its core members, the V11 also comprises the following observers: China, Denmark, France, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Such meetings are key, as they highlight the above stated goals of assuring cooperation, dialogue and partnership between developed and developing states, on issues of climate change financing and adaptation.

Kiribati’s President Anote Tong expressed his country’s goal of having the Ambo Declaration “contribute hopefully to some positive steps forward in the Cancun negotiations”. Presented in 18 points, the Ambo Declaration emphasizes signatories’ “concerns on the urgency of the climate crisis calling for immediate access to adaptation funds to meet and address current and projected impacts of climate change”.

President Tong stated “[t]he message we are trying to make here very clearly is that we are running out of time and as long as the global community continues to debate, it may be too late for small countries”. This indicates the sense of urgency brought to the negotiating table by Kiribati and similarly vulnerable countries.

The Ambo Declaration represents partnership and communication between vulnerable developing countries and their economically advanced counterparts. This is important because it demonstrates developed countries’ support for the unique vulnerability and plight of small island states. President Tong has expressed optimism at China’s signature of the declaration, but feels discouraged by the United Kingdom and United States’ reluctance to do the same, as the participation of these two countries is crucial to the success of any international environmental agreement.

Signatories will present the Ambo Declaration to the COP at the Cancun Conference, with the intention that it will provide “some positive steps forward” for the negotiations concerning financing for climate change adaptation. The ultimate goal of the Tawara Conference was to encourage developed countries to contribute funds to adaptation projects. It remains to be seen at Cancun whether any new agreement to this effect will be concluded. This may be unlikely, as representatives from France and the European Union – major voices at COP16 – have expressed their reluctance to commit to the declaration.

Signatories to the Ambo Declaration called for “decisions on an ‘urgent package’ to be agreed to at the COP 16 for concrete and immediate implementation reflecting the common ground of Parties, consistent with the principles and provisions of the Convention, and the Bali Action Plan, to assist those in most vulnerable States on the frontline to respond to the challenges posed by the climate change crisis”. Parties “welcome[d] the growing momentum and commitment for substantially increasing resources for climate change financing and call[ed] on developed country Parties to make available financial resources that are new and additional, adequate, predictable and sustainable, and on a clear, transparent and grant basis to developing country parties, especially the most vulnerable States on the front line, to meet and address current and projected impacts of climate change”. Developed country support was urged, particularly in terms of capacity building and technology transfer.

Signatories also “call[ed] on parties to the UNFCCC to consider the need for establishing an international mechanism responsible for planning, preparation for, and managing climate change related disaster risks in order to minimize and address the environmental and economic costs associated with loss and damage”. Finally, timeliness and transparency were urged, in order to ensure “a balanced allocation of resources between adaptation and mitigation”, and the consideration of “unique circumstances of most vulnerable States in the frontline”.

Article by Guest Contributor: Natalie Antonowicz

Deforestation in Capixaba, Acre, Brazil (Image source: visionshare)

Launched in 2008, The UN’s Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation programme aims to enable developing countries to reduce rates of deforestation via financial stimulation. Updated to REDD+, the program now encompasses conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks. The program currently maintains nine pilot projects in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Ahead of the Cancun Conference, the Environment Committee of the European Parliament has called upon the EU to support REDD+. Stressing the role of forests in addressing climate change, the European Parliament has passed a resolution calling for increased action against deforestation and forest degradation.

As described by German MEP Karl-Heinz Florenz, deforestation represents a common responsibility, as “deforestation, illegal logging, burning off of the rain forests in Brazil, Indonesia and other countries cause about 6 billion tons of CO2 annually”, and is responsible for 25 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. This acknowledgement is key, as developed-developing country cooperation – and their clear commitment – are vital for the success of REDD.

At COP15, states did not agree on what type of finance ought to be used for REDD- related activities and initiatives. As such, it remains to be decided how a previously proposed fund for all climate activities would be managed, and whether REDD would be included in it. Additionally, varied proposals exist regarding the scope of REDD+, and clarification of this is needed. The same is true for social and environmental safeguards for REDD, which have been discussed at previous climate conferences, but have not been definitively agreed upon. Specifically, the issue of how to hold funders and recipients responsible for safeguards remains ambiguous.

Significant progress on issues related to deforestation and forest degradation is expected at COP16. While pundits remain doubtful about the prospect of reaching an agreement about accounting and financing, as it pertains to REDD, many are optimistic about general REDD-related progress at the conference, and some have gone as far as to dub the conference ‘REDD-COP’.

Ultimately, delegates must tie the loose ends, and settle outstanding debates about REDD and REDD+, to ensure that states are able to adequately address environmental issues arising from deforestation and forest degradation.

Article by Guest Contributor: Ren Hui Yoong

Activist sign in front of President's office in Finland (Image by: Greenpeace Finland)

One of the most significant issues that world leaders will attempt to deal with at Cancun is the agreement on specific carbon emission reduction targets, particularly for Annex I developed countries, as part of a legally binding climate change treaty. This is of particular importance as the current set of emission targets set forth in the Kyoto Protocol is due to expire in 2012.

Thus far, progress in this area has been filled with much disappointment, primarily due to a clash between developed countries and developing countries, and also a lack of US engagement in the issue. Developing countries led by China argue that they have diminished responsibility due to the developed countries’ ongoing hypocrisy and historic responsibility in contributing to carbon emissions. The developing countries push for greater emission cuts for the developed nations, while the developed nations are generally reluctant to give in without similar action from other nations.

This problem of a deficient equilibrium – where an outcome renders everyone better off but, at the same time, there is no incentive to change behaviour – is at the root of the problem. The fact of the matter is that climate change is intrinsically linked with politics and economics, and it usually makes more economic sense to disregard the environment than to respect it. As such, states will not agree to emissions reductions that are not mutual or at least perceived as “fair”, as that will give competitors an inherent economic advantage. This tension was most acutely seen between the US and China, but is also seen by the EU’s bargaining and refusal to cut more emissions unless other countries do so as well. The COP15 meeting in Copenhagen a year ago was plagued by these issues, and only managed a vague agreement that was reached at the eleventh hour. And despite Copenhagen having emission pledges by countries that chose to do so, it still lacked “real” emission reduction targets, and perhaps even more importantly, was not legally binding.

Since Copenhagen and in the prelude to Cancun, there have been several preparatory talks in Bonn in Germany, and Tianjin in China. However, their outcomes have been similarly disappointing, marred by continued US-China tensions and distrust. As such, the expectations for a legally binding treaty that lists specific carbon emission reduction targets to come out of Cancun are not high. Especially with the hype and subsequent failure of Copenhagen still fresh on their minds, many observers are understandably cautious about the possibility of such a treaty, arguing that at best, a limited treaty will be possible, and instead referring to Cancun as a stepping-stone and a first step to better prospects at COP17 in South Africa next year.

On the surface, this issue of emission reduction targets seems to simply be a case of trying to renew the Kyoto Protocol ahead of its expiration in 2012, but things are far from being that simple. Perhaps even more importantly, Cancun’s success or failure at resolving this issue will have serious repercussions on other aspects of successful climate change mitigation such as agreements on technology transfer and sources of funding for developing countries. The ability, or perhaps inability, to agree on carbon emission reduction targets in the form of a legally binding treaty definitely reflects on the political will of the developed countries to voluntarily take up a responsible role in leading the global effort. At the moment, time is of the essence, and unless the developed country obstacle does not at least begin to show signs of being overcome, Copenhagen will only repeat itself in Cancun.

Article by Guest Contributor: Joelle Westlund

Mystery in China (Image by: **Maurice**)

Emerging from the four preparatory rounds in Bonn, Germany and Tianjin, China, developing countries have reason to doubt the progress to be made at the COP16 conference in Cancun. In the meetings leading up to  the conference, China and the United States have already disclosed their predisposition towards agreements on the reduction of greenhouse gas admissions, resulting in an unfortunate deadlock.

The goals for developing countries in the upcoming climate conference in Cancun will be to solidify reduction targets made last year at Copenhagen through legally binding agreements that will confirm financial aid and technological assistance. The majority of developing countries have expressed a willingness to formalize their actions in accordance with the developed parties of the Kyoto protocol.

Developing countries set off from the climate change conference in Copenhagen with varying expectations and proposal including funding of $30 billion between 2010-2012 and $100 billion by 2020. As the world’s largest emerging economic with rapidly increasing carbon emissions, China, Brazil, India and South Africa have yet to see any of the funds to aid the deployment of clean energy, reducing deforestation emissions and other promises. As China’s representative Xie Zhenhua stated, developed countries like the U.S. “has not provided financing or technology to other countries, yet it asks them to accept stringent monitoring and voluntary domestic action. It’s totally outrageous. It’s quite unacceptable.” China does not stand alone. Many developing countries believe developed nations are making inequitable demands of developing nations in their attempt to evade taking the responsibilities of its own emissions and providing funding and necessary assistance for the technological advances for poor countries.

Though absent of a legally binding document, COP15 established emissions reduction proposals that promised funding to Least Developed Countries (LDC) that accounted for 1.5% of their GDP for the long-term financing with the consensus that the global average temperatures should not increase by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. So far, China and other developing countries have denounced the list of objectives laid out for Cancun, characterizing them as premature and unbalanced. Furthermore, despite the progress made in Tianjin over issues of forestry, technology transfer and financing, discussions on the crucial topics of emissions reductions were obstructed.

Poorer nations are reluctant to have their pledges mixed with those of richer nations, particularly given the political uncertainty about the ability of the U.S. to achieve its goals. UN climate chief Christiana Figueres, however, has said that the recent talks have laid an important foundation for agreements in Cancun despite the challenges already faced between the U.S. and China. Other developing countries such as Saudi Arabia and Papua New Guinea are also showing an unwillingness to push forward with progress on important issues such as deforestation.

Evidently, developing countries are showing great hesitation and inflexibility. The conflict over matters of finance, emissions reductions, and the viability of future climate change proposals will depend heavily on the willingness of the developing countries to find a common ground for which to anchor their objectives. The discourse between the United States and China, thus far, signify the possibility for dialogue to take the form of a tit-for-tat means of negotiating. The ramifications of such postures in the preliminary rounds of agreement may denote the clouding of prospects for substantial progress in Mexico.

Article by Guest Contributor: Colleen Marie Gibson

Determined to find an environmentally-friendly way to travel to the COP16/CMP6 Conference in Cancun, Mexico, Climatico sent three analysts sailing as crew for the Annual Baja Ha-Ha Regatta from San Diego to Cabo San Lucas. This sailboat race is part of the annual migration of sailboats and sailors from the U.S. West Coast down to the South of Mexico and beyond for the winter season. With a sense of adventure, economic efficiency, and a desire to reduce their carbon footprint, the Climatico Team joined 199 sailboats in San Diego bound for Mexico on October 25, 2010.

Crewing on three different sailboats, including a continuation on from Cabo San Lucas to Puerto Los Cabos and onto Mazatlan, Climatico sailed over 1000 nautical miles over the course of 3 weeks.

While Climatico’s team of analysts sought to maintain a green passage, Climatico unfortunately did not skipper its own boat, leaving the responsibility for sustainability up to the skipper in charge of the vessel.

The first boat of the journey was a 36’ Catalina which contained a wind turbine and solar panel. The majority of the travel on this boat was wind-powered and seemed like a promising opportunity for a green ride. Unfortunately, the captain also held little regard for the natural environment and his seemingly green practices ultimately stemmed from a sense of frugality. As soon as the boat traveled into Mexican waters, the captain began to toss all garbage except plastic over the side of the boat to reduce onboard waste as well as opened the pumps to release unfiltered sewage into the ocean.  While this sewage dumping falls within the limits of the law in the State of California (there, a ship legally has to be 3 miles offshore to dump its sewage directly into the ocean, according to the Independent), this practice was shocking to its green crew onboard the vessel.

Most of the ships sailing the Baja Ha-Ha have holding tanks and could safely hold the sewage on their vessel until they pull into a port where they could use a pump out station.  However, the dirty practice of waste-dumping is relatively common when permitted within the limits of the law due to convenience and the reduction of odor onboard. And, while glass, cardboard, and human waste ultimately break down in our oceans, high boat traffic (and worse, cruise ships) can lead to a toxic situation for the natural habitat and nearby communities as well as foul swimming conditions.

The second (53’ Amel Mango) and third (45’ Hallberg-Rassy) boats in the analysts’ adventure held much friendlier practices when it came to waste-management due to desalinating water makers on board and recycle-friendly captains. However, these much larger boats also motored more frequently than the 36’ Catalina and their water makers required increased power usage.

The Climatico team did not conduct an analysis of the carbon footprint of each sailboat in their adventure and they certainly objected to the dirty sailing practices. However, ultimately, without control of the boat, you have to live under the rules of the skipper or risk desertion.

Sailing purists will find that a sailboat can be an extremely green form of travel if you have the time to wait for the winds to come. And, even if forced to motor or motor-sail, solar panels and wind turbines can lengthen the battery life and reduce the need to recharge while away at sea for extended periods. Climatico’s analysts ultimately experienced each end of the spectrum in their travel, and, while their carbon footprint may not have been zero, this journey gave them a chance to better understand an enjoyable form of sustainable travel.

UK’s Energy Minister, Chris Hulme, joins Ministers from over 190 countries today in Cancun, one of Mexico’s liveliest City’s to discuss ways to minimise climate change.

In efforts to prevent global warming of up to 2 degrees Celsius, Chris Hulme and his ministerial counterparts from around the world will put forward new ideas, policies and funding to achieve these goals.

Although the talks in Cancun will demonstrate a move forwards in agreeing that this is a global problem and action is required from all member states, it is unclear at this time as to what each country will bring to the talks.

A legally binding deal, a mitigation funding package and a clear and fair policy to allocating finance is perhaps what most of us sitting on the outskirts of the talks would expect to achieve.  But sceptics of how much progress can be achieved in Cancun may be settled with progress towards achieving such targets. 

Last year, the UK government under leadership of Gordon Brown pledged £1.5 billion to help countries adapt to Climate Change, use clean technology and protect forests.  This funding was requested to be new monies (90%), and not from existing commitments from the ODA Overseas Development Aid committed funds.

The UK has recently moved from a labour government to a Conservative – Liberal coalition government, of which the new ‘Green Deal’ and its financing for the UK to achieve its Climate change goals still remains relatively unclear.  It is therefore difficult to ascertain the UK’s stance in the talks in Cancun and how much finance as a country, the UK can ‘afford’ to allocate to global mitigation packages.

In terms of setting expectations from the UK camp of the Cancun talks, it will be interesting to watch out the following during the talks:

• If the financial commitments from Chris Hulme, new UK Energy representative exceed the former government commitment of £1.5 billion in December 2009; and that any new financial commitments are from new and not existing commitments (such as from the ODA).
• If the current EU bailout packages (under negotiation) for Ireland and possibly Portugal will affect EU country financial commitments to the global mitigation fund
• If a mechanism for issuing global climate mitigation funding is allocated on a fair and robust system (not just based on GDP i.e. a countries wealth) and that a strategy is agreed in terms of how the funding will be best used for maximum gain.

What we do know is that EU financial tensions are mounting, as the Finance Minister for the Republic of Ireland is currently agreeing the terms of an EU bailout package worth approximately £85 billion.  Ireland is not alone.  With mounting pressures facing the Portuguese government to accept a bailout package due to the poor performance of the Euro and subsequent stock markets during the past two months, how can the EU afford to fund a new Climate fund?

Cancun is fast approaching and with the recently completed UN climate talks in Tianjin, China and the United States appear stuck in the same deadlock that mired Copenhagen and which many have blamed for its ultimate failure to achieve anything substantial. What is it that China is seeking from these new negotiations?

In common with other developing countries China wants developed nations to shoulder the larger share of the costs of combating climate change. This includes greater reductions in emissions, as well as the fulfilment of promises for aid in the form of finance (including the £100 billion already promised) and technology transfers to developing countries to assist them in their attempts to reduce emissions and minimize the damage they incur from climate change.

With these goals in mind, China has in the last few years attempted to strengthen its hand in negotiations with its own voluntary reductions. The most highly publicised was its pledge at Copenhagen to reduce its carbon-intensity by 2020. But China has also pledged to reduce its energy intensity levels in 2010 by 20% from those of 2005. China had been making good progress on this pledge, with energy intensity levels falling 14.38% in the previous four years. They have, however, in recent months increased by an annual rate of 3.2% in the first three months of this year (Reuters). Chinese authorities are scrambling to ensure the target is met and in doing so they will give their negotiators additional ammunition at Cancun to argue that it is China, and not the developed world, that is doing its part to tackle climate change.

The real sticking point in all this is that the US wants China to open itself to verification that China is actually meeting its emission reduction pledges, something the regime has so far declined to do. The Chinese, on the other hand, argue that the United States has moved too slowly and done too little to reduce its emissions and should be taking the lead where it has so far failed to do so.

China is also particularly concerned about any attempt to reclassify it as a developed country, a move that would place pressure on the country to shoulder a greater burden of the costs, along with other developed countries. Any moves in that direction will see China blocking proceedings and stalling any further action toward progress in the talks.

What then are the hopes of agreement between the US and China at Cancun? Both appear to be unwilling to make any major concession to the other on their respective positions. However, there is enormous pressure on both sides to reach some form of agreement, and an awareness that if they don’t, the entire process may collapse in failure, an outcome neither side has any particular desire to see.

Article by Guest Contributor: Adalberto Maluf

The fourth meeting of the BASIC country ministers (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) on climate change took place in Rio de Janeiro on the 25th and 26th of July 2010 to further discuss their common positions regarding the Copenhagen Accord.

The BASIC countries were part of the final agreement reached in Copenhagen, although, officially, they left the conference “frustrated” with the final results. The joint statement after these two days of meeting in Rio “reiterated the importance of the two pronged approach – Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments by Annex I Parties” as crucial for an “equitable and balanced outcome in Cancun”.

The joint statement also shares concerns about those sensitive issues for the developing countries regarding differential (historical) responsibility between developing and developed countries, which is related to “equitable burden sharing” of past emissions within an context of sustainable development and also “demands the implementation of ambitious financing, technological support and capacity building.”

Despite the fact that the official joint statement didn’t differ much from what these countries have formally agreed in Copenhagen, there were some advances in Rio which can’t be underestimated. Overcoming Brazilian initial opposition, they all agree to develop a common methodology to assess their total emissions. The group, led by China’s chief climate negotiator, also agreed to have a “panel of experts” which would be responsible to establish a common baseline that could be equally measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV methodology). Brazil opposed it but didn’t block the initiative.

It could be the starting point for the development of a common methodology to assess and measure the real implications of their pledges for the economic and social development of these key countries. It’s a direct response of the Chinese government to the agreement made in the last hours of the Copenhagen conference between President Obama and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, with the intermediation of India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Brazilian President Lula da Silva.

There is a common feeling inside the BASIC countries that the Kyoto protocol won’t prevail in the near future, which could mean that they would have to change their positions for future negotiations. India insisted that it is rather clear that the Kyoto protocol is no longer a feasible route. With that in mind, they should all work together towards a single, inclusive climate change agreement.

The BASIC countries are still awaiting further developments around the world before moving forward with their pledges, however, there was a common understanding that developing countries with advanced economies, like Brazil and China, would have to abandon their rhetorical demand and start discussing ways to push concrete proposals in the table. The decision on a common methodology for MRV could be the beginning of that change.