Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 9 • Number 18 • 16th October 2009

Deadlock in UN Climate Talks Leaves Bunker Fuel Decision in the Air

Discuss this articleShare your views with other visitors, and read what they have to say

As the latest round of UN climate negotiations got underway earlier this month in Bangkok, Thailand many member nations were anxious to see where the issue of bunker fuels - dirty fuel used in shipping and aviation - would lead. Although several sources agree that the participants in the climate negotiations are adamant about reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to a specified level, there seems to be a standstill between developed and developing countries concerning their roles in this process (see related article, this issue).

The release of carbon dioxide from aircraft and shipping industries worldwide accounts for a considerable percentage of GHG released into the atmosphere. These talks also represent the world’s dissatisfaction with the lack of action from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to manage bunker fuel emissions, a task delegated to these two groups by the Kyoto Protocol. Peter Lockley, head of transport policy at the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) stated that “in the 12 years since the Kyoto Protocol gave these emissions to the ICAO and IMO to manage, they have failed to pass a single binding measure.” Numerous NGOs are now pushing for bunker emissions to have a greater role in the Copenhagen Protocol, believing that more stringent global policies on aviation and shipping emissions will help countries reach their goal of reducing the overall release of GHG into the atmosphere.

Two informal drafting groups, facilitated by Egypt and Canada, convened on international maritime shipping and aviation. Mexico, Singapore, Canada, and the US proposed that the IMO and ICAO take the lead in addressing bunker fuels. The EU had gone one step further by calling for global targets on bunker fuel emissions, which would be set by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and implemented through the IMO and ICAO. The Federated States of Micronesia, Tuvalu, Venezuela, and others underlined that the UNFCCC’s guidance is needed for the IMO and ICAO. In addition, Norway made a proposal for emissions trading or carbon taxes for bunker fuels used in international shipping. Despite this progress, however, environmental groups said they were frustrated that negotiators in Bangkok could not move forward on “significant issues.”

Among the fears that nothing will emerge from the Copenhagen climate conference and that bunker fuel emissions will not be sufficiently dealt with, several UN representatives and NGOs have asserted that the world must agree on the following points if anything is to be done concerning global climate change: emission reduction targets for developed countries, nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing countries, financial assistance to developing countries, and technology cooperation. Many still say they hope the standstill between developed and developing countries can be overcome during the last negotiating session before Copenhagen in Barcelona, Spain from 2-6 November.

ICTSD Reporting; “Climate Talks Stall on Developed Countries’ Weak Commitments,” ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE, 7 October 2009; “Bangkok Climate Talks Fail to Resolve Core Issues,” ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE, 9 October 2009; “Aircraft and shipping emissions on course for Copenhagen,” WWF, 6 October 2009.