Thursday, April 14, 2011
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Below are summarized the main issues debated in the two AWGs.
1. Mitigation. Discussion highlighted differences between developed and developing countries. The US, supported also by the Umbrella Group countries, proposed a framework on mitigation for all parties. While India and China opposed to this, stressing the need to distinguish between mitigation actions taken by developed and by developing countries.
2. Further Annex I targets. Japan announced the new government’s mid-term emission reduction goal of 25% from 1990 levels by 2020 (in Bonn III it was 8%) if there is a fair and effective international framework where all major economies participate, stressing that a simple Protocol extension would not be sufficient. Also Norway announced plans to increase their emission reduction target from 30% to 40% from 1990 level by 2020, specifying that this commitment requires an agreement that go beyond the present framework of the Kyoto Protocol.
Note: Map is provided by http://gunn.co.nz/map/
3. Flexible mechanisms. Regarding supplementarity, EU identified a strong wish to limit the CDM, noting a cap on CDM credits in the EU’s post-2012 climate and energy package. China stressed the need to define the concept of supplementarity to avoid mainstreaming offsetting, specifying that the figure can be further discussed but that it should be below 50%. Finally, India proposed that caps on the use of offsets could be scaled according to Annex I countries’ circumstances, such as historical responsibility or sustainable lifestyles.
4. Adaptation. Developing nations emphasized that adaptation actions in their countries must be supported by developed countries. India called for a 2% levy on all capital transfers in developed countries to support adaptation in developing countries. The US and Norway highlighted integrating adaptation into national planning and policies as a critical element.
5. Finance. Despite the consensus on the need to scale up new, additional and predictable financial resources for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries, the principles and structure of the financial architecture remain uncertain. No consensus was reached on: whether public or private funds should be the main source of funding, whether developing countries should make contributions, the role of Global Environment Facility (GEF) as the operating entity of the financial mechanism.
6. Open issues. Most developed countries agreed that a simple continuation of the Protocol will not be an acceptable outcome in Copenhagen, and that is needed a comprehensive international agreement involving the US and key developing countries in mitigation efforts. In the AWG-KP’s opening plenary the EU said that it prefers a single legal agreement as an outcome from Copenhagen. This position was strongly opposed by developing countries. Developed countries also highlighted the need to coordinate with the discussions taking place in the AWG-LCA process, engaging also the US. Developing countries, however, strongly opposed any attempts to coordinate or merge the two negotiating tracks, mainly due to a desire not to see the distinction between developed and developing countries compromised. However there were some positive progress in terms of new and more ambitious pledges from Annex I parties.