13th November 2009

Bridges Trade BioRes | Climate Talks Drift Slowly from Barcelona to Copenhagen

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

Another round of climate change negotiations concluded on Friday, 6 November, with minimal advances. The week-long meeting in Barcelona, Spain marked the last of a three-week session begun in Bangkok, Thailand in October. The Barcelona meetings were also the final round of negotiations prior to the UN climate convention’s Conference of the Parties (COP), which will take place in Copenhagen, Denmark from 7-18 December.

With the COP drawing near, negotiators were tasked with trimming down long texts and making some headway on issues that would lay the foundations for smoother negotiations in Copenhagen. But less than a week before the Barcelona meeting kicked off, the Danish Prime Minister declared that he did “not think it will be possible” for a legally binding regime to be negotiated in Copenhagen. Thus, with expectations lowered, the Barcelona meeting left port with barely any wind in its sails (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 30 October 2009, http://ictsd.org/i/news/biores/58320/).

The objective of the meeting was to continue refining draft texts in two negotiating groups: one that focuses on the Kyoto Protocol, and another that looks at other means of achieving long-term cooperative action (LCA) to address climate change.

Both the Kyoto Protocol and LCA negotiating groups attempted to close gaps on many divisive issues by reducing options, removing brackets, and seeking clarity on details. But little progress was made in the week-long talks, and the lack of movement on many topics cast a haze over what may lay on the horizon for the climate negotiations. Perhaps more importantly, many negotiators left Barcelona with a sense that, although climate change is a global problem, the nations of the world are not all in this boat together.

Africa Group walks out

One of the most contentious issues - which triggered the Africa Group to walk out and effectively shut down the Kyoto Protocol (KP) negotiations for a day and a half - was the debate over how much rich ‘Annex I’ countries should be required to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The Africa Group, which counts more than 50 countries as members, refused to continue discussions on any issue under the KP until the rich country commitments were firmed up. Developing countries repeatedly stressed that the pledges made thus far by Annex I parties would not go far enough to achieve the scientifically established emissions levels that would be required to stabilise the climate.

Developing countries are pushing for rich nations to cut their emissions to at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, while developed countries are offering cuts between 15 percent and at the highest 30 percent. China and the members of the G77 coalition of developing nations supported the African position and pressed the chair of the meeting, John Ashe of Antigua and Barbuda, to push developed countries for stronger targets. The Africa Group rejoined the talks after Ashe promised to devote 60 percent of the remaining time to the discussion on numbers.

The numbers issue is closely tied to the question of whether the Kyoto Protocol should survive beyond its first commitment period, which will expire at the end of 2012. Many developed countries have argued that the Protocol should be retired after its first period runs out. But developing countries fervently stress that the Protocol should be kept alive for further commitment periods. The argument for the latter is, principally, that the Protocol, despite its shortcomings, is all there is to assure emissions reductions from a large number of the world’s major emitters. But some developed countries maintain that the Protocol does not go far enough, since the US and major emerging economies like China and India are not bound by it.

The EU seems to have gotten the message from developing countries. In the closing plenary, the EU emphasised that it “stands firmly behind the Protocol and its implementation.” In a press conference at the end of the week, a representative from the European Commission said that Brussels is hearing the developing countries and understands that without a Kyoto Protocol, there will be no Copenhagen agreement.

Indeed, the possibility that no legally binding agreement will be struck at the December meeting seems increasingly likely. But some observers suggest that there could be an alternative outcome. This might take the form of a series of COP decisions, some say, while others suggest that the Copenhagen meeting could close with the announcement of a broad political declaration that would leave many details to be decided in subsequent negotiations. The latter would require a new mandate for continued negotiations, which could lead to a legally binding decision at a future date.

Keeping tabs on trade & competitiveness

A number of trade and competitiveness-related questions arose at the Barcelona meeting, but overall these issues saw little movement.

The ‘shared vision’ portion of the text underwent some odd metamorphoses. From the multi-page document, a short page-and-a-half long summary of key areas, looking suspiciously like a broad political declaration, was circulated among parties. After significant debate, the week ended with parties compiling this paper and the previous non-paper into one new non-paper. Notably, the section on trade measures such as ‘border carbon taxes’ (see related story, this issue) was included in the final document. In broad brush strokes, developed countries stressed that the shared vision should be concise, yet inclusive, and encompass actions by all countries, while developing countries stressed that it should be comprehensive and aim at the implementation of the UN climate convention.

Discussion on cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions evolved slightly. Many parties expressed their concern that these topics might raise questions related to international trade and warned of potential risks. Two topics are under discussion on this front: bunker fuels and agriculture. On bunker fuels - dirty fuels used in air and marine shipping - the debate focused principally on whether the topic should be limited to the Kyoto Protocol negotiations and whether the proper forum for decision-making should remain the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). On agriculture, developing countries opposed the setting of global standards while stressing the need to include consideration of food security in the text (see related story, this issue).

Financing discussions addressed institutional arrangements and where funding should come from. On the latter question, the greatest attention was given to the role of public versus private finance and whether developing countries (except least developed countries) will also be asked to contribute. The role that a cap-and-trade carbon market could play in generating funds was also considered, as were various proposals on ‘innovative sources’ of funding. Discussion will continue on all of the above in Copenhagen.

Discussions on technology development and transfer continued to refine options for institutionalisation, leveraging, cooperation, financing, information-sharing, capacity-building, and addressing barriers. But overall, the talks resulted in little change to the text.

Despite some ‘thinning’ of the text at the Barcelona meeting, there were no surprises or breakthroughs on the two tide-turning issues in the talks: mitigation levels and financing. Whether agreement can be reached on such pernicious areas of disagreement may ultimately hinge on political manoeuvrings at the highest levels. So far, many world leaders have not taken a strong stance on the climate talks, at least in public. But perhaps the next four weeks will bring a change in the winds.

ICTSD reporting.

More Bridges Trade BioRes headlines

More ICTSD highlights

One response to “Bridges Trade BioRes | Climate Talks Drift Slowly from Barcelona to Copenhagen”

Andrew Crosby 14th November 2009 at 08:42
Great story, well laid out with good coverage of many viewpoints.