UNFCCC COP13/MOP3
Bali, 3-14th December 2007
1. Summary of progress
Overall, Tearfund was pleased with the outcome of COP13/MOP3 in Bali, which launched negotiations on the 2nd commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (the ‘post-2012 framework’). Many developed and developing countries came to COP13 determined to negotiate for significantly increased action on climate change. Despite the disruptive actions of some countries, notably the USA and Russia, a positive outcome was achieved on addressing both the causes and effects of climate change. Tearfund was particularly pleased with the progress made on adaptation (addressing the effects of climate change on poor countries). We had hoped that developed countries would express a greater level of ambition for future emissions reductions, recognising that unless global temperature rise is kept below 2 degrees, adaptation will become increasingly difficult if not impossible for the world’s poor. However, the agreement made at COP13 to launch negotiations on the future climate change regime and conclude them by 2009 was highly significant. Now governments need to work hard over the next two years to establish the new global framework to succeed the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol.
2. Background
2007 has been referred to as 'the climate change year' due to the rise of the issue up the public and political agenda. This was building up to the biggest climate change event of the year – COP13 – probably the most crucial UN climate change summit since the Kyoto Protocol was agreed ten years ago.
The Kyoto Protocol was a useful first step in international efforts to tackle climate change. But it was never going to be enough. A 'first commitment period' was originally agreed to, running from 2008-2012, in which developed countries committed to reducing emissions by at least 5% from 1990 levels. Even if all of these reductions are made by 2012 (which they are unlikely to be) they miss the mark by a long way in terms of keeping average global temperature rise as far below 2 degrees as possible: now widely accepted as the limit for avoiding dangerous climate change.
It is crucial, therefore, that an effective ‘global framework’ is in place ready for when the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol runs out in 2012. To achieve this, negotiations on the global framework must start this year and be concluded by the end of 2009 as it is likely to take at least three years for sufficient countries to ratify a new treaty so that it can enter into force. Hence all eyes were on COP13, to see if it would launch the critical negotiation process leading to a comprehensive post-2012 framework. COP13 was, effectively, ‘talks about talks’.
The required outcome for Bali was to agree a process for negotiations for 2007-2009 (referred to as the ‘Bali roadmap’), with an agenda covering all the fundamental elements of a global deal. Amongst other things this deal must include much more ambitious emissions targets for developed countries in line with the science, and increased commitment and financial support for adaptation in poor countries.
3. The post-2012 framework
Numerous agenda items were discussed and agreed at COP13. In section three we analyse what was agreed at COP13 on the ‘Bali roadmap’ – in other words, how negotiations on the post-2012 framework will proceed from here on.
3.1 The Bali roadmap
The ‘Bali Roadmap’ was agreed at COP13. It will consist of a two-track process, with negotiations under the Convention (see section 3.2) and under the Kyoto Protocol (see section 3.3). All negotiations will be concluded by 2009 in order to ensure there is no gap between the first and second commitment periods of the Kyoto Protocol. It is as yet unclear how the two sets of negotiations will be linked. However, agreement on the ‘Bali roadmap’ was a significant outcome of COP13 and one which Tearfund welcomes.
3.1.2 The Dialogue
The ‘dialogue on long-term cooperative action to address climate change’ (referred to as the Dialogue) was established two years ago under the UNFCCC to discuss issues relating to the future of the Convention. It allows all countries to engage in discussion about the post-2012 framework, and consisted of a series of workshops held over the last two years. At COP13 the report of the workshops was to be discussed and a decision made about the future of the Dialogue.
Tearfund was calling for the Dialogue process to be turned into formal negotiations that would be finished by 2009. We were also calling for these negotiations to be linked to AWG negotiations under an overarching body or committee, to ensure a comprehensive, effective response to the issue of climate change. Items for the agenda of future Dialogue negotiations needed to include:
- agreeing different types of action by developing countries in line with principles of equity
- creating incentives from developed countries for developing country action
- increasing attention and support given to adaptation. Specifically, we were calling for adaptation to be a key building block within the post-2012 framework, of equal importance to mitigation. Raising the status of adaptation means funding for it should be significantly increased (and targeted on the poorest people).
Outcome
Encouragingly, it was agreed that the Dialogue would become a formal negotiating process, with the establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group to take negotiations forward to completion by 2009. It was also significant that the decision text under the Dialogue made reference to the need for ‘deep cuts’ in global emissions to avoid dangerous climate change even if it was not specified exactly what these would be. The majority of countries, with EU leadership, wished to consider cuts of between 25%-40% for rich countries, by 2020, but agreement was blocked by the USA, Canada and Russia.
In addition the Bali roadmap differentiates between the mitigation commitments of developed and developing countries according to principles of equity, and recognises the need to provide incentives for developing country action. The language in the decision text on this critical issue was much weaker than we would have liked, but it was no small achievement to agree that all countries – including the USA – will work together to address climate change through further negotiation over the next two years.
Tearfund was particularly pleased about the agreement that adaptation should be a key building block in the post-2012 framework. Moreover, it was agreed that improved access to, and provision of, funding for adaptation in poor countries would be on the agenda of negotiations over the next two years. Current levels of funding for adaptation are a fraction of a fraction of what is needed, so discussions about scaling up funding available for the poorest countries over the next two years are critical.
3.1.3 Ad Hoc Working Group (AWG)
Under the Kyoto Protocol a separate body, the AWG, was established to discuss further commitments for reducing Annex 1 Party emissions after 2012 (Annex 1 Parties are developed countries with current emissions reduction targets). At COP13 the AWG was due to carry on its discussions relating to the ranges of emission reductions for Annex 1 Parties.
Tearfund was calling for the AWG to:
- commit developed countries to much tougher targets in line with keeping global average temperature rise as far below 2 degrees as possible. Developed countries should agree on the need to reduce emissions by at least 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
- agree a work-plan going forward that concludes by the end of 2009
- consider bringing new countries into the Annex 1 group to take on binding commitments
Outcome
Agreement on the AWG was extremely hard-won, with negotiations going through the final night of the Conference and into the weekend. Finally, agreement was reached which recognised scientific assessment that global emissions need to peak and decline in the next 10-15 years, and Annex 1 countries need to reduce their emissions in a range of 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020. As with the Dialogue, a work plan for going forward was agreed with an end-date of 2009. Again, this was a relatively good result but much work will need to be done over the next two years if agreement is to be reached on the exact level of cuts Annex 1 Parties will make in the post-2012 framework.
3.1.3.1 Article 9
Article 9 of the Kyoto Protocol stipulates that the Protocol should be periodically reviewed and action taken as a result. The first review of the Protocol occurred at COP12 in Nairobi (2006) but was very limited. The next one is due to take place at COP14 (2008), with the scope and content discussed in Bali. Tearfund was particularly interested in Article 9, as the review opens up opportunities for increasing funding available for adaptation through applying levies (taxes) to the Kyoto Protocol’s mitigation mechanisms.
Outcome
It was agreed in Bali that the second review of the Kyoto Protocol will take place at COP14, and will be based on ‘the best scientific information and assessments’. Encouragingly, specific reference was made to adaptation as a key element in this review, and Parties were invited to submit views in 2008 on increasing funding for adaptation through mitigation mechanisms.
4. Other key decisions
4.1 Adaptation
Adaptation has been steadily gaining attention in recent years within UN climate change negotiations. Tearfund was therefore hopeful that at COP13 it would be given greater focus and prioritised within discussions around the post-2012 framework. It was vital that developed countries demonstrated commitment to supporting developing countries in this area where they have failed in the past.
Agreements on adaptation at COP13 were hard won, with some countries stalling and weakening language around commitments. However despite the weak or disruptive efforts of some countries, a highly positive outcome was achieved overall. Not only was adaptation included as a key building block for the post-2012 framework under the Dialogue, with many references to addressing the needs of poor countries, but the desperately needed ‘Adaptation Fund’ was finalised.
4.1.1 Adaptation Fund
The Adaptation Fund was established under the Kyoto Protocol to finance practical adaptation projects and programmes in developing countries, through a tax on carbon credits from the Clean Development Mechanism (carbon trading). However, the details of how the fund should be managed had not been agreed at COP12 so this was on the agenda for COP13. Tearfund was calling for the management arrangements of Adaptation Fund – which had been hotly disputed between rich and poor countries - to be finalised at COP 13 so that it can start functioning. We were also calling for a management body that has balanced representation of all parties (including developing countries) in the governance and decision making structure, and which allows poor, vulnerable countries easy, fast access to much-needed funding for adaptation.
Outcome
Significant progress was made on this issue at COP13 and the Adaptation Fund was finalised. The Board of the Fund will consist of 16 members, including fair representation from developing countries. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) was invited to be the Secretariat of the Fund on an interim basis.
Tearfund was pleased that after years of deliberation the fund can now start operating. We were also pleased with the composition of the Board, as well as the agreement that eligible Parties can apply for funding directly to it which will hopefully reduce administration delays. A question remaining is how successful the GEF will be as the Secretariat. A number of concerns have been raised in the past, particularly by developing countries, about the suitability of the GEF for this role (as a donor-led institution with complicated structures). However, positively, the Board has been given power of review over all matters relating to the Fund, including the Secretariat, every three years. The challenge will be ensuring that the reviews are transparent and lead to necessary re-structuring where necessary to ensure access to funding for the most vulnerable countries.
4.2 Technology Transfer
There is an urgent need to increase the development and transfer of environmentally sound technologies from developed to developing countries, for both mitigation and adaptation needs. With only a few days before the end of the Conference, negotiations on technology transfer were in disarray - understandably causing huge concern for developing countries. However, in the eleventh hour an agreement was finally reached: governments recognised the need to urgently deliver technology to developing countries, and agreed to create a new ‘programme’ to scale up the level of investment in technology transfer.
Tearfund was disappointed that this issue caused controversy, but very pleased that an outcome was finally agreed. Mechanisms have been put in place to monitor the effectiveness of the new programme.
Sarah La Trobe in Bali and Rachel Roach in London, 15.12.07