Developing

Countries and the new Post-Kyoto commitments: Alternatives analysis

ENVPU4100_001_2012_1: Political Economy of Energy and Climate Change Policies

Jenny Mager May 4th, 2012

School of International and public affairs Jenny Mager Columbia University May 2012

Introduction Climate Change is a global issue; probably the most important environmental problem of our age, everyone in the world will be affected in one form or another by the consequences of global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Fourth Assessment Review (AR4) Report concluded that warming of the climate system is unequivocal and most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (IPCC 2007). These concentrations have perturbed the natural equilibrium of the carbon cycle. In the international arena there is no an entire consensus about the safety level of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, we are only certain that it is impossible to continue with the level of emission that we have nowadays, and if we want to stop the disasters of the climate changes consequences we should gradually cut them and eventually reach the zero emission target. Historically, the principal contributors to CO2 emissions have been industrialized countries, which in their path toward development have been responsible for putting in the atmosphere more than the 50% of anthropogenic CO2. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) groups these countries under the name of Annex 1 countries, these are the same that under the Kyoto protocol agreed to cut their emission respect to the base level of 1990. The less developed countries belong to the group of the Non-Annex1 countries, and do not have targets of emission reduction under Kyoto. Since the beginning of Kyoto most of developed nations have being implementing plans to reduce their emissions through flexible trade mechanisms, however those effort have not being enough to stabilize the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Some of the initial signer nations have withdraw the commitments made in Kyoto in order to reduce their emissions at their own speed.

School of International and public affairs Jenny Mager Columbia University May 2012

The new dilemma in the scenario post-Kyoto (after 2012) is that developing countries should comply a mandatory target reduction as well; considering the implications that this obligation can cause in the economic growth of these countries. Developed countries insist in having mandatory reductions for developing world, specially the fast-growing countries such as India and China. On the other hand, the group of non-annex 1 countries is divided in those countries that agree with reducing their emissions and the ones that do not want any mandatory commitment. In this paper I will discuss the new scenario for developing nations, analyzing some of the international controversies and the alternatives under the UNFCCC negotiations to implement effective mitigation actions. Mitigation from the developing world: The Clean Development Mechanism The history of developing countries participation in the international negotiation of climate change starts with the convention it self and with the Kyoto protocol. Under this last initiative, developing countries have no binding target for emission reduction. Kyoto protocol, however, created a voluntary instance for participation for those developing countries that have ratified the agreement. This instance of participation is the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is a market instrument to trade emission reduction credits, building sustainable projects in developing countries. The main idea of the CDM was to help to developed countries to comply their reduction target and at the same time to promote technology transfer and sustainable development in the developing world. Nevertheless, CDM is not exempt of controversies. There are plenty of arguments about the problems related with the CDM, some of them are that the high cost of monitoring and verification could exceed the abatement cost saving; it can increase emissions because buying credits richest countries are allowed to emit more; there is no a efficient technology transfer to developing countries, instead the richest countries lead to further dependency (Shah 2012). These critics are in some part true, however, is unfair to ignore that many of the CDM projects have brought important benefit to the host countries such as energy efficiency programs, additional foreign investment and more environmental awareness.

School of International and public affairs Jenny Mager Columbia University May 2012

Nonetheless, there is one major critic about the CDM that is important to bring out; from the beginning of the CDM developing countries have been host for several sustainable projects many of those projects have a great potential of reduction or need lower investment; beside that this situation imply more CDM participation for the host, the reduction made belongs to the buyer (an Annex 1 country), in the new scenario of emission reduction target for developing countries, this could means a lack of project portfolio for local government, which eventually means a need for high investment in the search for mitigation actions. The new phase in negotiations: Reduction Target for developing nations This year the 20th anniversary of the Framework Convention on Climate Change is commemorated. Two decades ago, the nations of the world recognized the problem of global warming and the necessity of take actions to prevent its severe consequences (Tay 2011). At that time the willingness to act was much more strong than in the present; unfortunately, now nations seem to move away of the initial objective of a legally binding agreement. The initial idea of different level of responsibilities and obligations taken in Kyoto was, under the Eyes of many, very beneficial for developing countries; in fact, it can even be argued that components of this concept one-sidedly have benefited developing countries and have led to what may be understood as a positive discrimination of the Third World (Beyerlin 2006). This argument, however, presents a lack of consideration of ethical issues. In the first place, we cannot ignore the fact that the problem we are facing now was caused mainly in the industrialization process, by which developed countries reached their current wealth. Ironically many of those countries wont be as affected as poor nation with the consequences of climate change; that is the second ethic point that I want to discuss, according to vulnerability studies around the globe poor countries will experiencing most adverse of the impacts, precisely those who are often not the ones who emit the most greenhouse gases. A study of Columbia University shows that the countries with less negative impact related with climate change will be Scandinavian, European Union countries, Japan, Canada and the United States. On the contrast, the most vulnerable ones are located in Africa and Bangladesh (Yohe 2006). This is not

School of International and public affairs Jenny Mager Columbia University May 2012

a claim to ignore the developing countries responsibilities but an invitation to look at the scene in context. We can locate the beginning of the controversy about the target for developing nation in the Bali conference of the parties in 2007, where the post-Kyoto agreement appeared in the international discussion. The result of Bali was a two-year roadmap to guide the negotiation to a second period agreement. One of the most significant developments was the emergence of the proposal aimed at ensuring that technology, financing, and capacity building, subject to MRV procedures, supported mitigation actions by developing country parties. The fact that this was one of the key points under discussion illustrates that the climate regime was already stepping in new territory, with the far-reaching implications of linking developing country participation in mitigation actions (Abreu 2010). Since Bali, the bargaining process has been marked by the reluctance of Non-annex I countries to accept legally binding targets arguing that major emitters such us United States have to commit with aggressive target as well. The expectations for a new agreement in Copenhagen in 2009 were too high considering this complex scenario between developing and developed countries; this scenario, however, was marked by two main positions dividing developing nations. On one hand, the higher emitters countries of the developing world formed the BASIC coalition (Brazil, South Africa, India and China), which agree with a second Kyoto period but with a strong opposition to a mandatory reduction target to their self. On the other hand, there are other developing countries, which have agreed to take some voluntary commitments, supporting the negotiation of a new legal agreement that would be more comprehensive in coverage, including mitigation targets from the United States and the BASIC countries (Bodansky 2010). Beside the conflicts, the results of Copenhagen were important for the negotiation. In the first place, it was agreed that the Kyoto protocol must go on including its flexible mechanism such as CDM; also there was a recognition in the importance of Climate Change as a global issue and its critical impacts; in the mitigation discussion the was an agreement in incorporate new mechanism for developing countries to cut their emissions such as NAMAS (national

School of International and public affairs Jenny Mager Columbia University May 2012

appropriated mitigation actions) and REDD (Reforestation and Forest Degradation); and also the necessity of a funding mechanism for those mitigation actions. In Cancun conference, held in 2010, the process of negotiation takes a different shade. On the mitigation front, developed countries submitted economy-wide emission reduction targets and agreed on strengthened reporting frequency and standards and to develop low-carbon national plans and strategies. Developing countries submitted nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs), to be implemented subject to financial and technical support. Work continued on shaping the form and functions of a registry for NAMAs to enable the matching of such actions with finance and technology. Developing countries were also encouraged to develop low-carbon national plans and strategies (United Nations 2010) Durban conference, in 2011, continued the discussion of Cancun and addresses some important points: First, it established a working group called Durban Platform to Enhanced Action (UN; which seeks to establish the futures direction of the climate regime by a round of negotiation to be conclude in 2015 and operationalized in 2020 (United Nations 2012). Secondly, a new period of the Kyoto protocol, as a transition period until the new agreement. And third, there will be a continuity in the work initiated in Cancun about cooperation (mitigation and adaptation), carbon finance and REDD. This agreement is important because it state that eventually each country will agree in cut their emission and those cuts could account for an 80% of the total global emissions (United Nations 2012). However, it is impossible not to think why this agreement take so long to come, considering that at the speed of global environmental degradation, 2020 can be just too late. Maybe the most remarkable statement of Durban, was the one made by China that announced its willingness to sign a legally binding agreement for a post 2020 period. This statement will turn out in an additional pressure to the United States, which previously stated that China need to commit in order to sign an agreement. The constant debate between China and the US for cutting the emission clear shows that the lack of political will and the lust for power sometimes is stronger than the common wealth. Ironically, the argument made by the US is that the production in China should be more sustainable and regulated, however, the principal

School of International and public affairs Jenny Mager Columbia University May 2012

commercial partner that China Has is precisely the United States, and many of the emissions produced by China are produced because of the need to keep the level of exportation to the US. Together the United States and China account for almost 40 percent of total global emissions. Thus, despite great differences in both historical and per capita emissions, actions by both countries are essential to stabilizing and reducing emissions over the next 40 years (Seligsohn , et al. 2009) Regardless all the controversy, it is important to understand that the participation of the non- annex I countries is a key piece of the future climate scenario, beside the right to growth, those countries need a sustainable plan to reach wealth but in a more environmentally friendly way, contrary of what happened with industrialized countries. The speed of the population and economy growth, and also the levels of energy use are increasing the level of emission from developing world, at these rate of consumption and growth the importance of a fair agreement for each nation is vital. New mitigation efforts: available alternatives and some ideas The new phase of mitigation for developing nation has started; each country no matter what is the level of its emission should not be outside of the global effort to mitigate Climate Change. Part of the new effort will be in the construction of adaptation plan for the most vulnerable countries, and the planning of new mechanisms to help developing nations to reduce their emissions. The UNFCCC has developed new important tools to reduce the problem of emission s in the developing world. The first one that is important to mention is the Nationally Appropriated Mitigation Actions (NAMAs); According to the article 3.1 of the UNFCCC Different countries, different nationally appropriate action on the basis of (Ministry of Environment of Chile 2012) equity and in accordance with common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (United Nations 2010), this article recognize the importance of the local effort to mitigate Climate Change, and it also recognizes that those efforts should be proportional to the size of the impact generated by the country.

School of International and public affairs Jenny Mager Columbia University May 2012

It is clear that developing countries have the right to reach their goals of going out of poverty, to have better life quality and access to the globalized world. In the new scenario of local commitments to reduce the GHG emissions, developing countries have being submitting their own voluntary targets. Those targets are considerably important, because they are the motivation to look for sustainable development. However, the majority of developing nations are not able yet to invest in adequate programs that help to comply with their commitments, here is where the NAMAs system becomes crucial due to the cooperation with most developed countries. Funds and access to technological transfer are part of the tools that a NAMA can consider and the beneficial is not only for the country that receive the fund also is a global sign that cooperation and global collaboration can work efficiently. In the transfer of technology, however, it is important to consider that not only a transfer of capital in enough but also a transfer of knowledge and skills are vital for the future initiative to become successful in the developing nation. A new mitigation alternative that some developing countries are taken is the project called MAPS (Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios), this initiative started in South Africa as a long Term mitigation scenarios project between 2005 and 2008 (Ministry of Environment of Chile 2012) Thanks to the success of that local initiative, in 2010 Maps international was established. This is a program of work to assist emerging countries to devise development plans compatible with the challenges posed by climate Change. Currently MAPS projects are being developed in Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Peru (Ministry of Environment of Chile 2012). This initiative counts with international funding, and if succeed can easily become a model for other subgroups of developing nations. Another initiative, which has being largely discussed, is the Reduction of Emission for Degradation and Deforestation (REDD). To point out the importance of this issue we can take the example of Indonesia, which has the fastest deforestation rate of any single country in the world, when emission of loss forest are taken into account, Indonesia could be considered the worlds third largest emitter of GHG according to the World Bank Report (World Bank 2007); Deforestation is a major source of emission since account more than 17% of the total, which is more than all cars, trucks, planes, trains and ships collectively emit into the atmosphere (Friedman 2009).

School of International and public affairs Jenny Mager Columbia University May 2012

That is why an effective mechanism to mitigate these activities is so important. REDD has being discussed in the global negotiation and it is very clear how should works, however, there is some uncertainties related with the accountability, monitoring and principally funding, which has delayed too much the start up of this projects in the formal context. This type of mitigation activities could comply with two incredible important objectives, mitigation and adaptation for local communities, considering the quantity of eco systemic services provided by a well- managed forest. This process needs to be urged into the international discussion. The less popular alternative is the use of new technologies and geo engineering; due their high level of cost this has being almost ban from the formal discussion. But, Is it so crazy to include new extreme development into the mitigation actions? My opinion is that we should be cautious. If we stop the emissions of GHG tomorrow doesnt mean that the Climate change problem would be resolved, this means that thinking in ways to drop the level of GHG in the atmosphere is sometime that is need to be done in order to clean up our mess. But here is where we need caution, some alternatives proposed have the wrong focus and seems like science fiction, but other could easily be applied in countries with lack of energy resources. Therefore, the process of mitigation in the next years should be split in the extreme sustainable growth and adaptation for emerging economies, and on the other hand, more investment in research and development of new technologies leading by the developed countries. Conclusions The new Climate Change negotiation scenario has been marked by the discussion of the reduction target for developing nations. This controversy has taken to much time to resolve changing the main focus f the discussion of the Climate Change Negotiations. The continuous fights between the emerging nations with high levels of emission and the developed that dont want to yield in any commitments until those big emitters also commit, has shows that sometimes the seek for economic power is more important that the environmental degradation.

School of International and public affairs Jenny Mager Columbia University May 2012

Nevertheless, not all is bad, some small countries has taken seriously their own vulnerability and the value of their own effort in the fight against climate change. Those effort have push the negotiation to the next level where more mitigation alternatives and more economic cooperation have been pledge. In the next years there will be a hard work designing the policy and agreements to reach the stabilization targets. Meanwhile, the local work inside government to enhance their own policies will be vital to be ready for the adaptation needs and also for moving forward to a sustainable development. International cooperation, also should be re-thinking, it is important that in the next years the technology transfer become more in a skill transfer to really help nations to create the capacities to develop in a sustainable way. The most important point is that each nation is different so the policy effort also should apply to the local reality, if the importance of local policy is well understood and supported by the international opinion we will be a step closer to get a real global agreement.

10

School of International and public affairs Jenny Mager Columbia University May 2012

Bibliography
United Nations. United Nations Framework Convetion on Climate Change. 2012. www.unfccc.int (accessed April 2012). United Nations. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. Cancun: United Nations, 2010. World Bank. Indonesia and Climate Change: Current Status and Policies. University of Michigan, World Bank, 2007. Yohe, G., E. Malone, A. Brenkert, M. Schlesinger, H. Meij, X. Xing, and D. Lee. "Global Distributions of Vulnerability to Climate Change." The Integrated Assessment Journal 6 (3), 2006: 3544. Abreu, Daniel. The Evolution of the Climate Change Regime: Beyond a North-South Divide? . Edited by Javier Alcalde. Institut Catal Internacional per la Pau. Barcelona, October 2010. Beyerlin, U. "Bridging the North-South Divide in International Environmental Law ." Heidelberg Journal of International Law (Max-Planck-Institut) 66 (2006). Bodansky, D. "The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference: A Post- Morterm." Social Science Research Network. University of Georgia School of Law. 2010. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1553167 (accessed April 20, 2012). Friedman, Thomas. "Trucks, Trains and Trees." New York Times, November 11, 2009. Intergovernmental Panel on Climage Change. "The AR4 Synthesis Report." Valencia, Spain, 2007. IPCC. 2006 IPCCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Hayama: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), 2006. IPCC. Climate Change 2007:Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva: IPCC, 2007. Ministry of Environment of Chile. Opciones de Mitigacin para Enfrentar el Cambio Climtico. 2012. www.mapschile.cl (accessed April 2012). Seligsohn , D., R. Heilmayr , X. Tan , and L. Weischer . China, the United States, and the Climate Change Challenge. Policy Brief, World Resources Institute, Washington D.C.: WRI, 2009. Shah, Anup. Climate Change Flexibility Mechanisms. April 02, 2012. http://www.globalissues.org/article/232 (accessed April 15, 2012). Tay, Desmond. "Climate Change: An Environmental Justice Perspective ." 2011.

11

School of International and public affairs Jenny Mager Columbia University May 2012

12