Authors: Sabrina Chesterman & Nyla Sarwar.

As the climate talks gain pace in Bonn, progress is being made on a new text, designed to resurrect chances of a global agreement in Cancun in December. Many, including outgoing UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Yvo de Boer, are still hesitant about Cancun being able to achieve a deal, which was originally supposed to have been reached at Copenhagen last December. One of the Mexican negotiators, Luis Alfonso de Albo, has used the coverage at Bonn to try and instill confidence in what may be achieved there, stating a climate deal is still ‘positive’.

The Bonn meetings have brought together key negotiating groups, including;

(I)              AWG-KP – to focus on further commitments by Annex I parties, based on text prepared by the Chair

(II)            AWG-LCA – to focus on preparation of an outcome to be presented to at COP 16, based on a new text by the Chair

(III)           Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) – which will consider issues including national communications and reporting, the financial mechanism and capacity building.

(IV)          Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) – which will consider methodological issues, technology transfer and the Nairobi Work Programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change.

The Bonn discussions have entered their second week with many fundamental questions still remaining regarding the legality of the proposed agreement, emission levels and temperature goals.  The big white elephant in Hotel Maritim where the discussions are being held, lingering from Copenhagen, centres on the scale of commitments by developed and developing countries. The new text aims to ameliorate the huge bridge that exist between these groups and integrate the Copenhagen Accord with the 2009 versions of the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP texts.

In regards to finance, the new text states that that all finance will be new, additional, adequate and predictable. Whilst developed countries have committed to a goal of mobilising USD$100bn/pa by 2020, there is still uncertainty about which countries will contribute towards this and how much. Discussions regarding the generation of private funds have seen suggestions of a potential international cap-and-trade system with auctioned permits. There have also been references to the creation of a Finance Board within the UNFCCC to manage the operators of the agency’s financial mechanisms (i.e the GEF and the Climate Fund), including the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund (CGCF). Disillusionment regarding funding is also created due to the texts reference to the Copenhagen Adaptation Framework (CAF), implemented through international collaboration. The CAF aims to undertake 11 activities (e.g. planning, vulnerability assessments, strengthening institutional capacities, building resilience, disaster risk reduction etc.) all of which require extensive funding.  Worryingly the text remains sparse on new market mechanisms, likely to be critical to galvanise funding, especially from private and public sector partnerships.  In addition, as the EU Commissioner for Climate Change, Connie Hedegaard, made clear last week discussing the monetary agreements in lieu of the destabilised Euro does not come at an easy time, especially with money having to be drawn from the public purse.  Therefore funding remains a sensitive yet pivotal topic, especially if alliances are to be bridged between different negotiating groups.

Some aspects of the text being prepared at Bonn remain unchanged from the text prepared at Copenhagen. An example includes the issues surrounding REDD and REDD+, which was hailed as one of Copenhagen’s successes. In addition, the text regarding technology transfer remains unchanged from last year, and this section is considered to deliver a major outcome. The text suggests that establishment of a Climate Technology Centre and Network – the mechanism to support and organise the transfer of technology, encourage collaborative innovation, and skills development for developing countries. It is expected to be funded by the overarching funding mechanism and could begin as early as January 2011. Leading on from technology transfer, discussions so far at Bonn regarding capacity building have been largely inconclusive with additional brackets added to the text, and wide disagreement concerning its funding, delivery mechanism and reporting. With key uncertainties remaining, negotiators at Bonn have a lot of talking to do this week if success is to be achieved in any of these areas and a clear path to Cancun is to be laid.

France has been a leading nation in climate change negotiations in the recent past. French President Nicolas Sarkozy called for a national carbon tax on global-warming pollutants. Generally, he recognizes that “We are on the road to failure…Time is not on our side.” He has even gone so far as to suggest the creation of a new international organisation to deal with climate change. But after major losses to his party in regional elections earlier this year, the government has been backpedaling on things like the carbon tax.

But running up to the Bonn Climate Change Talks (31 May to 11 June), France has continued to organize summits and partnerships striving to move forward the UNFCCC climate change negotiation process. Prime among these have been: 1. the Oslo-Paris REDD negotiating process and 2. the Africa-France Summit.

Paris-Oslo process was initiated by France and Norway to build on progress made at the Copenhagen last December towards an international mechanism to fund forest protection. The program — called REDD Plus, for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation — will encourage rich nations to voluntarily finance forest-protecting projects while coordinating that aid to avoid waste and ensure transparency.

During the last meetings of the Paris-Oslo process on 27 May 2010 in Oslo more than $4 billion had been pledged by developing nations to kick-start international REDD+ efforts aimed at halting deforestation and restoring forests in developing countries. Effectively, the feeling is that with money on the table and the urgency to halt GHG emissions from the clearing and degradation of tropical forests, REDD+ should move ahead even in the absence of a new global climate agreement.  But there is some concern from NGOs that currently REDD+ lacks indigenous participation and transparency.

France has been taking an active role in brokering relations between Africa and EU-nations. The Africa-France Summit convened from 31 May to 1 June in Nice, France. The Summit addressed the theme of “climate and development.” A main goal of including reconciling climate change with development, poverty reduction, and food security was put forth. European Commissioner for Development, Andris Piebalgs, took part in the Summit. He was adamant that common solutions could come under the broader African-EU Strategic Partnership.

The UNFCC session in Bonn marks the resumption of the climate negotiations within the UN framework. France believes that the UNFCCC should remain central to the negotiations and benefit form the contributions of smaller initiatives, allowing advanced progress to be made on certain tracks of the overall discussion.

Now the world waits to see the effect of the talks France has helped to broker in past months.

The Bonn UN Climate Change Talks in Bonn, Germany is taking place between 31 May – 11 June 2010. Representatives from 182 governments are in attendance, picking up on unresolved issues left over from the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP 15) this past December and putting forward a path for the implementation of international climate change action.

Day 1

The first day of the Bonn Climate Change Talks were dedicated to the SBI and SBSTA opening plenaries. The flexibilities mechanisms were discussed under the SBSTA, with disagreements voiced regarding carbon capture and storage (CCS) and exhausted forests under the CDM, although standardized baselines under the CDM will be discussed.

Yvo de Boer spoke to the press, emphasizing that the two week negotiations will remain on track as long as participating nations maintain their focus on finding a common way forward towards a concrete and realistic goal for the UN Climate Change Conference (COP 16) in Cancún later this year. In addition, he warned that a postponed outcome at the Copenhagen meeting last December does not mean that the impacts of climate change had also been postponed.

A reception hosted by the German government was held later in the evening on Monday to celebrate Yvo de Boer’s tenure as Executive Secretary and wish him farewell.

Day 2

Tuesday marked the opening of meetings for the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the UNFCCC (AWG-LCA) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP). In addition, contact groups met to discuss technology transfer under the SBI/SBSTA, non-Annex I communications under the SBI, and other issues including documentation on LULUCF, flexibility mechanisms, and methodological issues.

Under the AWG-LCA, the Chair’s draft text was introduced and several parties noted that it was a good basis for beginning the discussions.  However, some delegates noted concern over the loss of a separate section on finance, perceived imbalance, and the potential for a significant growth in text length, as well as the possible impact of time spent in contact groups on the available negotiating time.

Yvo de Boer also addressed the conference, highlighting Copenhagen’s progress toward a technology mechanism, including a climate Technology Centre supported by regional units, raising the potential for partnership opportunities between governments and the private sector.

Day 3

Wednesday’s schedule consisted of contact group meetings and informal consultations. Issues under discussion included national communications, LDCs, the financial mechanism, capacity building, privileges and immunities, Annex I emission reductions, preparation of an outcome for presentation at COP16 (Item 3) under the AWG-LCA, and other issues under the AWG-KP.

Finance was a hot topic of the day, under discussion during the AWG-LCA contact group meeting. The AWG-LCA Chair provided a list of questions regarding the enhanced provision of financial resources which was then discussed during both the morning and afternoon group meetings. Many delegates noted a positive and constructive tone to the discussions, although complaints included discussions going in circles, parties maintaining their pre-Copenhagen positions, and the role of the UNFCCC being threatened by various parallel initiatives.

Day 4

On Thursday, delegates met together for contact groups as well as informal consultations. Issues under discussion included a review of the Adaptation Fund, intergovernmental meetings and capacity building, Annex I emission reductions, research dialogue, the Buenos Aires programme of work (decision 1/CP.10), and preparation of an outcome for presentation at COP16 (Item 3).

The fourth day of negotiations took on a positive tone with signs of progress. A proposal put forth by AOSIS and backed by several other developing countries called for joint discussions between the two AWGs of Annex I emission reductions (limited to Annex I countries). This proposal was well received although broader joint discussions on the topic of mitigation still face large opposition. In addition, the US and some other developing countries might not be on board with the AOSIS proposal. Also making headway, the LULUCF submission by developing countries received positive response along with the agreement to reconstitute the legal issues group under the AWG-KP.

Day 5

On the fifth day of negotiations, the AWG-KP plenary took place and contact groups and informal consultations occurred. Topics under consideration included Annex I national communications, Annex I emission reductions, arrangements for intergovernmental meetings, preparation of an outcome for presentation at COP16 (Item 3), technology transfer, and the focal point forum under the NWP convened.

Discussion over COP16 and side event arrangements took place and speculation arose over the still-undeclared location of the negotiating session taking place this autumn ahead of Cancún. The hope for joint discussions between the two AWGs was not as strong as the day prior. However, the energy may rise again when delegates meet for the final week of the Bonn climate talks.

Day 6

The second week of negotiations on Monday began with more contact groups and informal sessions. Under discussion: the Buenos Aires program of work (Decision 1/CP.10), preparation of an outcome for presentation at COP16 (Item 3), capacity building, the scientific, technical and socio-economic elements of mitigation, and Annex I emission reductions.

The topic of the joint meeting of the two AWGs arose again following the weekend hiatus. Of focus on Monday was the issue of common space for the AWGs, but no consensus has yet been reached. Despite support from AOSIS and various countries in Latin America, the US had not indicated that it would get behind such a meeting and some countries amongst the G-77/China remained in opposition.

LULUCF has also been receiving attention this week: transparency in LULUCF accounting is appearing to gain headway, a common position on reference levels was taken by the G-77/China, and reference constructions are showing signs of opening up.

Day 7

The topics of discussion during Tuesday’s contact groups and informal consultations included: the financial mechanism, capacity building, national communications, review of the Adaptation Fund, preparation of an outcome for presentation at COP16 (Item 3), and Annex I emission reductions.

With closing plenaries taking place on Wednesday, not much new was presented as delegates worked hard to wrap up issues under consideration over the past week. At noon, an informal briefing took place by the UN Secretary General’s High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing (AGF) in which members announced that  potential finance sources are currently being prepared in a report which is hope to be completed and presented before COP16 in November.

Day 8

Wednesday marked the end of the climate talks in Bonn. Contact groups and informal consultations took place during the day to discuss Annex I emission reductions and the preparation of an outcome for presentation at COP16 (Item 3). Later in the day, the SBI and SBSTA convened for their closing plenaries.

On Wednesday afternoon, a joint SBI/SBSTA session took place in order to say farewell to the outgoing UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer. Thanking the negotiators, IGOs, NGOs, industry, and his colleagues for their work over the past fourteen years, de Boer stated that “we do not have another fourteen years” to show that the UNFCCC can deliver progress. He noted that as negotiators work towards a legally binding agreement, there are divergences over the meaning of “legally binding” which serves as an advantage as it enables a broad definition. He further emphasized that agreements on several complex subjects cannot be reached with “15,000 people in the room” but through a “clear mandate to work in a smaller group and report back to the COP.” In his closing remarks, de Boer concluded that negotiators “will not only try, but also succeed.”

Read Yvo de Boer’s farewell statement here.

Further Reading

Bridging the road from Copenhagen to Cancún – Can the Bonn Climate talks lay any firm foundations? (Posted 31 May 2010 by Sabrina Chesterman)

France has prepared for positive Bonn outcome (Posted 6 June 2010 by Jennifer Helgeson)

Bonn Climate Talks: Paving the way to Cancún (Posted 8 June 2010 by Sabrina Chesterman and Nyla Sarwar)

As the 32^nd session of the UNFCCC Convention subsidiary body gets underway at the Hotel Maritim in Bonn, many will be hoping the talks can deliver some measure of mediation between parties and begin carving a real path towards Cancun. Outgoing Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, Yvo de Boer, had urged all Parties to ‘overcome differences and work for greater clarity on what can be agreed to by all Parties for Cancun in December.’  The UN’s top climate change official, who will be replaced by Christiana Figueres from Costa Rica after the Bonn meeting, has promoted negotiators to gain finality on the architecture that will launch inclusive and effective global climate action. In an attempt to prevent deadlock in the talks, as witnessed at Copenhagen, do Boer has focused specifically on the need to conclude on “mitigation targets and action, a package on adaptation, a new technology mechanism, financial arrangements, ways to deal with deforestation and a capacity building framework”.

Making allies rather than enemies will be crucial if the talks at Bonn are to proceed. A strong coalition is the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), supported by more than 100 Parties, has already asserted it will not shift from its position centred on mitigating global temperatures to a 1.5 degree rise above pre-industrial levels to stabilise atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations below 350ppm. Grenada, on behalf of AOSIS, has already affirmed that this goal must be reflected in the draft negotiating text. These small island states, some of the most vulnerable to continued climatic change and associated implications such as sea level rise, have been resolute in their demands that pledges of 2°C will not be sufficient.

It is expected the US will be an important voice with their negotiating team having already flagged to the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Co-operative Action (AWG-LCA), one of the two subsidiary bodies of the UNFCCC, that it does not recognise the current text proposed as a basis for negotiations. Although the Copenhagen Accord was not formally adopted by the Conference of the Parties, 120 of the 194 UNFCCC parties have signed the Accord, consequently countries like the US are pushing for the Accord to progress under the Convention. The official position of the Secretariat coming into the Bonn meeting was the fact the Accord can be used as part of the negotiation process. This has come under fire from India and China, countries pivotal to the negotiations, citing that the talks should be based on the existing UN tracks namely the Kyoto Protocol and Long Term Cooperative Action (LCA). The task at Bonn is to try and find a medium between these and come up with a new draft that adequately integrates the Accord as well as the existing tracks.

Financing mechanism will also be high on the agenda, with the 26 developed countries that drew up the Copenhagen Accord pushing for the establishment of a Green Climate Change Fund. The Fund, proposed as one financial entity of the Convention supports projects and policies relating to mitigation for example REDD plus as well as adaptation projects through support, capacity building and technology transfer. A priority for the Bonn talks will be to shape how the US$30 billion pledged by industrialised countries at Copenhagen can be utilised in the near term (up until 2010) to kick-start climate action in developing countries. Issues of contention include the governance and leadership of the Fund, currently suggested to be under a board nominated by the Conference of the Parties, however many developing countries are hesitant with this notion. It is essential this promise of funding is met, and a clear road ahead until 2012 is made to regain some trust between the developed and developing nation negotiation blocks. It is essential a transparent and agreed upon methodology is employed to prioritise the most vulnerable countries and appropriately apportion financing through the Fund in this manner.

The UN climate change body has come up with a new draft which has elements of the Copenhagen Accord as alternative options for the nations to agree.  The Chair of the LCA group will be hoping to bridge these contrasting views, especially mediating talks between the small island states, China and India and the developed nation block. An indicative roadmap has already been proposed to guide the road to Cancun in December, however major speed bumps include issues related to mitigation, finance, measurement, reporting and verification. The greatest block is the global temperature targets and according emission limits, and negotiators at Bonn will have to grapple between either committing to deep cuts in the near term or setting up a longer term more ambitious global reduction plan.

Top priority on the agenda is the preparation of an outcome from the Bonn talks which can be to be presented to the Conference of the Parties in Cancun for adoption to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention. In addition developing countries will be focusing on the need for cooperative action now, up to and beyond 2012, especially with regards to clarity on the future of the Kyoto Protocol. The crux is again likely to occur with the US wanting a legally binding agreement for all relevant parties, especially China, the greatest emitter of CO₂ with the developing countries likely to reiterate their stance on historical responsibility.

The two week Bonn session represents a significant portion of the remaining negotiating time before Cancun and therefore priority needs to be on finalising the architecture around the fast-track funding and ensuring funds can be efficiently and equitably distributed as laid on in the Accord. In addition do Boer needs to try and align political leadership and iron out political instabilities to try and ensure Figueres can captain and floating ship to Cancun. Almost all the Parties agree there is an urgent need to conclude a legally binding agreement, therefore the Bonn talks need to ensure a comprehensive implementation package is making its way to the table.

Climatico analysts will be following the progression of the meeting through daily updates as well as a concluding analysis.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meetings continued in Bonn, Germany from 9 – 11 April 2010. This marked the eleventh session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP 11) as well as the ninth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA 9).

The meetings were focused on the organization of each of the working groups in the coming year. The main goal was to prepare for a successful conclusion of the groups’ work during the upcoming Conference of Parties (COP) 16 in Cancun later this year.

During the three day meeting there was much reflection on the COP 15 negotiations which took place in Copenhagen last December. Criticisms of COP15 have been extreme in the past months. At the Bonn meeting, 10 April, Pablo Solon, Bolivia’s ambassador to the UN, condemned what he called “continued attempts by some developed countries to impose a deeply flawed Copenhagen Accord as the basis for future negotiations.”

In order to combat the failures Solon has identified in the process, Bolivia will host the World Peoples’ Summit on Climate Change and Rights of Mother Earth on 19-22 April 2010. More than 15,000 people and 70 governments are expected to attend. The object of the Summit is to bring “civil society back into the process of climate change negotiations.”

In the wake of COP 15 there has been a call from many developing nations towards more industrialized ones for increased trust. To this point, at a press conference, Solon called for a return to the full UNFCCC process, and to strengthen what had been agreed in COP15. He stated that “the central aim of any climate summit is not to save itself and accept any outcome, but to come to an agreement that will save humanity.”

In the wake of criticism and the launch of the World Peoples’ Summit, the USA has begun to slice millions of climate change support dollars from Bolivia. These cuts in funds were not stated as being directly related to the Summit launch. However, funds are also being cut from Ecuador, which is the first nation to recognize the legal rights of Mother Earth. Commenting on the cuts in funding from the USA and Denmark, Solon commented: “what kind of negotiation is it where you lose money if you disagree?”

Only time will tell if the actions like the World Peoples’ Summit on Climate Change and Rights of Mother Earth will affect the goals and tone of COP 16.

Rich countries, led by the US, have opposed discussing proposals from various poor countries around the reform of intellectual property rights (IPR). These discussions are crucial to technology transfer efforts. This document is quite useful as a primer on IPR and climate change.Technology transfer (as I’ve written before) will be crucial for helping poor countries develop clean technologies. However, current IPR regimes are quite restrictive, and much IP is owned by private companies who don’t want to give it away for free.

This isn’t the first time these issues have come up in a global social justice context. A few years ago there was uproar when big pharma tried to stop generic drugs companies copying their HIV/AIDS treatments and selling them at prices which poor people in developing countries could afford.

G77+ China have been arguing that rich nations should buy cleantech IPR from private companies in their countries and make it available to all, in the name of climate justice. This move would also prevent those companies from making huge profits out of the necessity of the world moving towards less carbon-intensive growth.

It is essentially another row about market-based mechanisms – countries like India are arguing that the market can’t be trusted to provide a consistent flow of technologies, which is fair enough. Of course, there is another side to the argument. It would be very difficult to change the IP regime to accommodate free transfer of clan technologies – the whole thing could need to be rewritten.

Furthermore, it would remove the profit motive for companies to develop the technology in the first place. Therefore, rich countries are sceptical because if the idea was put in place it would essentially involve them massively subsidising green industry, distorting markets, and generally holding back the “invisible hand” that is supposedly going to solve all our climate problems.

In any case, there has to be a way around this issue that lets technology transfer happen in both a fast and fair way. Just don’t expect rich countries to budget on IPR reform…

Over the past two weeks, delegates from 183 countries convened in Bonn, Germany to create negotiating texts under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for consideration in Copenhagen this December. In focus at Bonn was the enhancement of international climate change cooperation, particularly as it relates to the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. In all, over 4,600 participants were in attendance, consisting of government delegates, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, representatives of the private sector, academia, and the media.

The Bonn Climate Change Talks, which began on June 1st and concluded on June 12th, consisted of four meetings as part of the UNFCCC: the sixth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA 6), the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Protocol met for its eighth session (AWG-KP 8), and both the Convention’s Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) held their 30th sessions.

A brief summary of the meeting results are as follows:

AWG-LCA 6

The meeting by the AWG-LCA focused on the negotiating text development and was largely a success, resulting in a 200-page draft negotiating text. The draft managed to hold to elements addressed under the Bali Action Plan such as a shared vision for long-term cooperative action, adaptation, mitigation, finance as well as technology and capacity-building.

AWG-KP 8

The AWG-KP considered the various proposals put forth by the Annex I parties under the Kyoto Protocol. Unfortunately, these discussions resulted in less success than that of the AWG-LCA 6. Over the course of the plenary sessions, the parties were unable to reach an agreement on emission reduction targets post-2012 and developing countries expressed disappointment at the proposals made by Annex I countries. According to John Ashe, the Chair of AWG-KP, while options for the treatment of land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) to reduce emissions saw great progress, both aggregate emission reduction targets and individual targets have yet to be decided. In addition, the negotiating group remained far from the target range required by science to avoid the severe climate change impacts.

SBI

In focus for the SBI was the development and transfer of technologies. Three reports were produced by the Expert Group on Technology Transfer (including future financing options, long-term strategies, and indicators of performance). Furthermore, the SBI produced an agreement to reconstitute the Consultative Group of Experts on Non-Annex I National Communications. Unfortunately, the second comprehensive review of the capacity-building framework under the Protocol and the Convention was met with a lack of agreement.

SBSTA

The SBSTA considered such issues as the methodology, technology transfer, research and systemic observation, and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (referred to as REDD). The methodologies that make it possible to both monitor and report emissions from deforestation (accounting for 20% of greenhouse gas pollution) made solid progress. However, the SBSTA failed to come to an agreement on REDD for the COP draft.

Despite lack of agreement in various areas of discussion over the past two weeks, the meetings in Bonn resulted in the adoption of 31 conclusions and seven draft decisions. According to Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, “A big achievement of this meeting is that governments have made it clearer what they want to see in the Copenhagen agreed outcome…In my view, an ambitious and effective agreed outcome in Copenhagen is in sight – an outcome that provides a strong and definitive answer to the alarm raised by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

The Bonn session marked the second in a series of five major UNFCCC meetings occurring this year in preparation for the UN Climate Change Conference, taking place from 7th-18th of December in Copenhagen. The next step in the process toward Copenhagen is for parties to refine the specifics of the text for discussion at the next Bonn meeting in August, followed by another session in Bangkok in late September and a gathering in Barcelona in early November.

The second two-week round of UN-led climate talks, held in Bonn, met with some critical feedback, though there were notable highlights in the dialogue.  One such highlight was the pitch four of the world’s largest air carriers made for a worldwide emissions limit for all airlines as part of the deal to be reached in Copenhagen this December.

The Aviation Global Deal Group (AGD), which includes British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Air France/KLM and Virgin Atlantic, presented what they deem an “ambitious, equitable, and effective” regime of emission caps for all airlines.  This proposal is an effort to include the industry in a climate treaty that 192 nations aim to agree upon this December.  The UN estimates that airlines account for about 3 % of global emissions.  The airline industry has not been subject to GHG regulations up to this point.

Executive secretary of the UN’s climate-change agency, Yvo de Boer, does admit that “it’s very hard to say if aviation will be included” in a final agreement in Copenhagen.  Regardless, airlines are expected to be included in EU regulations in 2012.  The USA has also proposed future legislation on airline CO2 output.  The AGD specifically discussed capping carriers’ GHG output based on annual fuel purchases.  Companies overshooting their target would have to buy permits from those emitting less than their allocation.  Revenue from auctioned permits would go towards helping developing countries adapt to climate change and developing cleaner air travel technology.

Yet, the Bonn talks were described as yielding little true consensus. France’s climate ambassador, Brice Lalonde, said that compared to previous sessions, in Bonn “the attitudes were more constructive, but the level of ambition was lower.”  His specific criticism was that it is now commonly accepted knowledge that global emissions have to be halved by 2050 (compared with 1990 levels), implying an 80 % reduction by industrialized countries. It is also generally agreed that the emissions levels in developing countries must start falling by 2025 at the very least.   But in Lalonde’s opinion, “no one is signing up” – in which statement he is also rather critical of the EU’s involvement.

The driving issues, such as who should cut their emissions and how soon, as well as the question of technology transfer to poor countries, require specific road mapping exercises – for example the proposal by the AGD.  Just last month in a major meeting in Paris (reported in a previous Climatico article), representatives from France and Germany were ardent in their call for flexibility in the mechanisms by which climate change mitigation occurs, so long as it does indeed occur.  Perhaps it will be industry partnerships of multi-national firms that ultimately pushes – or flies—  climate change negotiations over this precarious negotiation standstill?