|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
on your Newsreader!
Format for print or mobile
Africa: Climate Talks Background, 1
AfricaFocus Bulletin
Oct 27, 2011 (111027)
(Reposted from sources cited below)
Editor's Note
"For Durban, many countries - particularly developing
countries - seek an outcome that is based on science, on
the multilateral system reflected in the Convention and its
Kyoto Protocol, and on the deal agreed by all countries in
the Bali Roadmap. A handful of wealthy countries -
including notably the United States - are now seeking to
move the goalposts. They want to end the Kyoto Protocol and
replace it with a "pledge based" approach ... Durban, then,
is shaping up as a clash of paradigms." - Third World
Network
This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains several reports from
Third World Network on recent developments in international
climate negotiations preceding the Durban climate change
conference taking place from 28 November to 9 December
2011. The first is a general summary of the issues , coauthored
with other groups including the Pan African
Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA. This is followed by two
summaries of discussions at the most recent international
talks preceding Durban, held in Panama earlier this month.
Two other AfricaFocus Bulletins released today also deal
with climate change issues. One, sent out by e-mail and
available on the web at http://www.africafocus.org/docs11/clim1110.php, has
excerpts from a new international report highlighting two
priority actions that national governments can take on
climate change, namely removing subsidies on fossil fuels
and imposing new charges on international aviation and
shipping fuel. The other, at http://www.africafocus.org/docs11/dur1110b.php, has a
selection of excerpts from recent articles and links also
of interest for background to the discussions at Durban.
For previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on issues of the
environment and climate change, visit
http://www.africafocus.org/envexp.php
++++++++++++++++++++++end editor's note+++++++++++++++++
UNFCCC negotiations - 3 October 2011
A civil society assessment of the climate negotiations
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/climate/panama.assessments.htm
Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Friends of the Earth US
Friends of the Earth Malaysia
Jubilee South - Asia/Pacific Movement on Debt and
Development
Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA)
Third World Network
The climate talks in Panama represent the best and last
chance to get negotiations back on track and prepare for
success at the 2011 UN Climate Conference in Durban, South
Africa. What are the key issues? And what needs to be done
to prepare for success in Durban?
Setting the stage for success
The Durban climate conference is not going to be easy. The
2010 climate talks in Cancun addressed a number of easier
issues leaving thornier ones such as the future of the
Kyoto Protocol for Durban.
For Durban, many countries - particularly developing
countries - seek an outcome that is based on science, on
the multilateral system reflected in the Convention and its
Kyoto Protocol, and on the deal agreed by all countries in
the Bali Roadmap.
A handful of wealthy countries - including notably the
United States - are now seeking to move the goalposts. They
want to end the Kyoto Protocol and replace it with a
"pledge based" approach under the Convention thus
threatening to dismantle rules on developed countries,
shift the burden to developing countries, and renege the
Kyoto Protocol, the 2005 mandate for negotiations and the
Bali Roadmap.
Durban, then, is shaping up as a clash of paradigms between
those who believe that the world deserves and needs a
science- and rules-based multilateral climate system
building on the existing one in order to tackle perhaps the
greatest challenge to face humanity, and those who
apparently believe in a voluntary domestic driven system.
The elephant in the room
In the negotiations, the major stumbling block is the
United States. It remains the only country to officially
remain outside the Kyoto Protocol [ ]; its emissions have
increased 16% since 1990 despite its promise under the
Convention to stabilize and reduce emissions to 1990 levels
by 2000; and it is now seeking to dismantle the global
climate regime negotiated since 1992.
The US' proposed "bottom up architecture" is a radical
departure from the existing system and the deal struck by
all Parties - including the US Bush Administration - in
Bali. Based on its submissions, this approach involves
"domestically derived mitigation commitments" and an
outcome that is "legally symmetrical" for all countries,
except the least developed. Under the approach supported
by the United States there would be:
- No negotiation of commitments. The US support a
"mitigation contribution" that is "domestically derived"
and that it has "chosen to list" in an appendix.
- No internationally binding commitments. The US
contribution would be achieved through means "provided for
under their respective laws and policies". They will have
"targets" that can be reviewed but they will not be bound
in international law to achieve them.
- No comparability of efforts. The US pledge does not take
into account how it compares with other developed
countries. A senior US negotiator has doubted the need for
metrics to evaluate comparability.
- No assurance of adequate efforts. The proposed "pledgebased"
approach does nothing to ensure an adequate level of
effort, despite the Convention's requirement that developed
countries take on "equitable and appropriate contributions
to the global effort".
- No effective rules on compliance. The US prefers the
"sunshine" of transparency, and domestic rules on
compliance, over a legally binding international compliance
mechanism such as exists already under the Kyoto Protocol.
- No aggregate target for developed countries. The US
remains unwilling to agree a science-based aggregate target
for developed countries. It instead prefers merely to
aggregate the pledges offered by developed countries. Such
an approach would effectively "deregulate" the
international climate system. The US supported the Cancun
outcome because it prefigures just such an approach.
The US has camouflaged its real intent by sounding positive
while shifting attention elsewhere (e.g. to China).
According to its leaked 11 March 2010 communications memo,
it seeks "to reinforce the perception that the US is
constructively engaged in UN negotiations in an effort to
produce a global regime to combat climate change".
A race to the bottom
Inspired perhaps by the US, some Kyoto Parties (Canada,
Russia and Japan) are refusing outright to undertake a
second commitment period, despite their international
obligations, the 2005 mandate for negotiations, and the
2007 Bali Roadmap. Yet they continue to sit in the Kyoto
Protocol negotiations where they fail to negotiate in good
faith.
Other countries (Australia, New Zealand, European Union,
Switzerland and Norway) claim to support the Protocol, but
are imposing "conditionalities" that would compel the same
result to end it.
In promoting a new treaty under the Convention all seem to
be operating under the misguided notion that sometime soon
the US will be ready to agree to a new treaty. Anyone who
has followed US politics over the last decade, let alone
recently, might question the wisdom of this.
A new "mitigation treaty"
Some developed countries have called for negotiations
towards a new legal treaty to be launched in Durban.
Australia and Norway, for instance, propose a mandate for a
new treaty with "binding mitigation commitments by both
developed and developing countries", except the least
developed. Notably, the proposal so far does not explicitly
condition corresponding agreements on the Bali Roadmap on
issues of adaptation, finance, technology and capacity.
A narrowly focused "mitigation treaty" under the Convention
offers a "triple win" for the developed countries. It would
provide:
- New mitigation commitments (versus actions) for the
developing countries;
- Weaker mitigation commitments than already applicable to
the developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol; i.e.
voluntary emission pledges determined domestically, and
- No new commitments on the other Bali "building blocks" -
adaptation, finance, technology and capacity - all of which
are critical to developing countries.
Australia and Norway suggest such a treaty could exist
alongside the Kyoto Protocol, but they understand all too
well that no developed country will continue in the Kyoto
Protocol if they can "jump ship" to a weaker treaty under
the Convention. And no one expects a Convention-track
treaty to be stronger than the Kyoto Protocol, particularly
if they expect the US to participate.
Plan C: Expand the Kyoto Protocol?
Some countries are now discussing an old proposal with a
new makeover - i.e. creating mitigation commitments for
developing countries through an Annex C in the Kyoto
Protocol. This "Plan C" has the advantage of "saving" the
Kyoto Protocol. But it imposes new binding commitments on
developing countries, when the deal in Bali was for
"nationally appropriate mitigation actions" and disregards
the principles of equity, historical responsibility and
differentiated responsibilities and capabilities. It does
not guarantee any treaty outcome under the Convention track
on adaptation, finance, technology or capacity. And
negotiating a new Annex C requires substantive changes to
the Kyoto Protocol, an outcome that would itself take
considerable time.
All of these approaches - a new "mitigation treaty" and an
"expanded Kyoto Protocol" - involve caving into Annex I
countries' efforts to manufacture a crisis in Durban
involving the second commitment of the Kyoto Protocol, and
to move the goalposts rather than honor the Bali Roadmap.
None of them ensures a balanced approach across and within
the two tracks. None ensures legally binding outcomes on
adaptation, finance, technology or capacity. And none
immediately addresses perhaps the greatest problem - the
profoundly inadequate ambition by Annex I Parties to reduce
their emissions.
Mitigation: close the gap
To keep global warming below 2°C, around 12Gt of climate
pollution must be cut globally by 2020 according to UNEP
(around 14 is probably required to be in line to keep
warming below 1.5°C). In Copenhagen developing countries
have already pledged more than 5Gt of reductions with the
support of finance, technology and capacity. They are
willing to do their part, subject to delivery of finance,
technology and capacity in accordance with the Convention.
So to keep warming below 1.5°C a gap remains of around 9Gt
(i.e. 14 minus 5). Despite this, developed countries have
offered less than 4Gt of reductions, an effort considerably
less ambitious than that offered by developing countries,
and despite their "differentiated responsibilities and
capabilities". Moreover, they have available around 4Gt in
accounting "loopholes", meaning they could comply with
their pledges with no actual mitigation. Carbon markets
would make this outcome even worse. They could, in other
words, make no net contribution to reducing emissions by
2020.
In addition, developed countries are insisting that new
market mechanisms be introduced in the negotiations to
further enable the rich countries to offset their emission
reductions. In a world that needs to move to no carbon
emissions in over just a few decades, there is clearly no
room for offsets. Rich countries must do maximum reductions
at home, as fast as possible. Simultaneously, they must
provide substantial support through finance and technology
to enable developing countries to tackle the historic
challenge of moving out of poverty while eventually cutting
emissions. For developed countries to avoid or delay
inescapable transformation of their industry at home by
off-setting though low-hanging fruit in developing
countries is not an option. Expansion of the CDM and
proposals for new market mechanisms must therefore be
rejected in the negotiations leading up to and beyond
Durban.
Finance: Bait and switch
Finance is a key outcome for Durban. Yet disbursement of
the $30 billion "fast-start" finance pledged in Copenhagen
and Cancun has been slow, little is demonstrated to be "new
and additional", there is no finance pledged for 2013, and
$100 billion pledged for 2020 is inadequate and fails to
state how much will be from public sources. There is,
consequently, still much progress required on finance.
A successful Durban Conference will ensure clarity on the
sources and scale of finance going forward. It will
operationalize the Green Climate Fund with legal
personality, an independent secretariat and adequate
initial capitalization under the authority of the
Conference of the Parties.
It will also put in place a common reporting format and an
assessed scale of finance contributions for developed
countries. And it will operationalize the Standing
Committee on Finance to ensure greater coherence on global
climate finance. In Panama, Parties should seek to make
substantial progress on these issues, as the basis for
success in Durban.
Leadership anyone?
Annex I countries must radically increase ambition by
agreeing a science-based aggregate target, comparable
individual efforts, and appropriate sources and scale of
finance.
They must:
- Increase the ambition of their mitigation commitments;
- Tighten accounting rules and methodologies to eliminate
loopholes; and
- Expand finance, technology and capacity commitments to
developing countries.
Failure to do so risks a major failure of leadership. In
Panama, all Parties should recognize the major failings in
Annex I mitigation ambition, and explore ways to close the
mitigation gap.
Benchmarking success
Ultimately, success in Durban must be measured against the
objective of the UN Climate Convention. Are we on track to
avoid dangerous interference with the climate system? And
will this be done in a time frame that protects ecosystems,
food production, access to water, and enables sustainable
societies?
Measured by this yardstick, negotiations remain blatantly
off track. A UNEP report confirms that countries' pledged
emission reductions are too weak to avert dangerous climate
change, and could cause warming up to a catastrophic 5°C.
Warming in Africa and other large land-masses would occur
at much higher levels, heralding impacts not experienced in
the history of human civilization.
Indeed, current levels of warming have already begun
"triggering" major "tipping points" in the Earth system -
such as Arctic methane, Amazon dieback or loss of icesheets
- with 2°C of warming threatening to trip a cascade of
events that cause warming to spin out of control. In fact,
warming "beyond 1°C may elicit rapid, unpredictable and
non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem
damage", the UN Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases
concluded already back in 1986.
Success in Durban
Urgent action is required if we are to stabilize the
Earth's climate system and protect all of our earth's
ecosystems and peoples. This must go beyond "measuring,
reporting and verifying" mitigation commitments. It
requires scaling up the ambition of those commitments. To
avoid collision with nature's boundaries, we have to change
course, and not merely measure, in increasingly minute
detail, the rapidly narrowing distance to catastrophe.
To secure success in Durban, all countries should follow
the bargain struck in Bali. They should maintain the
existing rules - including provisions on transparency and
compliance under the Kyoto Protocol - and lift up the
standard of other countries (including the United States)
through new negotiations under the Convention. Developed
countries are to honor their long-standing, but largely
unimplemented, obligations to enable adaptation and provide
substantial financial and technology transfers.
To ensure success in Durban developed countries should stop
moving the goalposts and play by the rules. They should
fulDill their second commitment period under the Kyoto
Protocol, and honor and build on the strengths of the
existing climate regime reflected in the UN Climate
Convention.
Third World Network October 10, 2011
http://www.twnside.org.sg/climate.htm
TWN Panama Update No. 15 10 October 2011
Developing countries forge new alliance to save climate
regime
Geneva, 10 October (Meena Raman) -The African Group, the
Least Developed Countries and the ALBA group of countries
launched an alliance in Panama City on the side-lines of
the climate talks to "save the climate regime and ensure
success in Durban" at the forthcoming meeting of the
Conference of Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
At a joint-press conference held on the 7 October, news of
the alliance was announced. The African Group, a grouping
of 53 African countries was represented by Mr. Tosi Mpanu
Mpanu of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the LDC Group
comprised of 48 countries was represented by Mr. Pa Ousman
Jarju of Gambia and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples
of Americas (the ALBA Group) comprised of 8 countries was
represented by Venezuela's climate envoy, Ms. Claudia
Salerno Caldera.
Mr. Mpanu Mpanu said that the groups had come together to
enshrine their unity in making Durban a successful COP and
to address the core issues that united the groups. Ms.
Caldera said that their unity was for achieving a common
goal to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention in
saving humankind, the planet and mother earth. She said
that the groups came together in response to the Panama
climate change meetings and to ensure progress in the
negotiations in good faith. Mr. Ousman Jarju of Gambia
referred to the 'Statement of Common Position' adopted by
the 3 groups and highlighted some specific aspects. He said
that cooperation was necessary for Durban to strengthen a
science-based and fair outcome for the climate regime and
reiterated that the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol
constituted the fundamental global legal framework on
climate change.
He said that the negotiations must produce two outcomes in
Durban in line with the Bali Roadmap, for an agreed outcome
to implement the Convention and a second and subsequent
period of the Kyoto Protocol. These outcomes must be
ambitious, balanced and based on science, equity and the
rule of law. All actions or measures related to climate
change must be in full conformity with the principles and
provisions of the Convention, in particular those of equity
and common but differentiated responsibilities and
respective capabilities. He said that it is imperative that
developing countries work in unison to advance a strong
common position to ensure the realization of the shared
objectives and for the full, effective and sustained
implementation of the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol.
On the state of play of the negotiations, Mpanu said that
two major gaps had to be addressed in relation to
mitigation and finance. On the mitigation gap, he said that
there was need to decrease emissions by 12 gigatonnes CO2
equivalent by 2020, if the temperature is to stabilise at 2
degree C. Developing countries are contributing to a
reduction of about 5 gigatonnes while developed countries
to only a 4 gigatonne reduction, showing that developing
countries were doing quite a lot.
On the finance gap, he said that developed countries had
promised fast start financing (of USD30 billion between
2010 to 2012) but this has not been fast nor has it
started. On longterm finance, the USD 100 billion per year
by 2020 as agreed to in Cancun was just the floor as a lot
more was needed, including for adaptation. There is need to
know what will happen between 2013 and 2020, he added. He
also stressed the need for a decision under the Kyoto
Protocol for a second commitment period and that Durban
must not become the graveyard for the Kyoto Protocol.
Mpanu also expressed concerns that the negotiations in
Panama advanced on the issue of mitigation but there has
been no progress on finance. It was important to adopt an
agreement in Durban and that there was no need for standing
ovations but for developed countries to show good faith and
leadership in the negotiations, he said further. On the
negotiations in Panama, Ousman Jarju said that at the
beginning of the week, there was foot-dragging on the part
of developed countries in relation to the finance issue,
but the G77 and China was able to send the right signals to
ensure that there were negotiating texts on the table. He
reiterated that without a commitment by Annex 1 Parties to
a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol in
Durban, it will be hard for progress under the Convention
and he hoped developed countries realized the implications
of their position in this regard.
TWN Panama Update No. 18 13 October 2011
Developing countries remain firm on the Kyoto Protocol
Geneva, 13 Oct (Lim Li Lin) -- The final plenary of the Ad
hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I
Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) in Panama City on
7 October heard strong statements by developing countries
on the importance of adopting the second commitment period
of the Kyoto Protocol in Durban.
Developed countries, meanwhile, stressed on a new climate
change framework and on the continuity of the market
mechanisms. The session in Panama City was the final
negotiations before the Meeting of the Parties (CMP) in
December in Durban, South Africa.
At the start of the plenary, the AWG-KP Chair, Adrian Macey
from New Zealand, summarized that over the week, the
contact group had discussed policy issues including the
nature of the second commitment period, that a number of
Annex I (developed country) Kyoto Parties have indicated
that they will not undertake quantified emission limitation
and reduction objectives (QELROs) in a second commitment
period under the Kyoto Protocol, and the continuity of the
market mechanisms after 2012.
[In fact, developing counties have insisted that the Kyoto
Protocol's second commitment period must be adopted in
Durban, through an amendment to its Annex B as mandated.
Developing countries have also questioned why the
Protocol's market mechanisms should continue post 2012, in
the absence of a second commitment period starting in
2013.]
A revised proposal by the Chair to facilitate negotiations
was issued at the end of the meeting, "streamlining,
clarifying and updating" the text based on the work of the
spin-off groups during the week. The Secretariat produced a
table of possible QELROs, through a technical exercise of
converting the emission reduction pledges of Annex I
Parties into QELROs as required under the Kyoto Protocol.
Japan, Canada and Russia asked for their QELROs to be
removed from that table, as they do not intend to undertake
a second period of emission reductions under the Kyoto
Protocol.
The Chair concluded that it was the strong wish of Parties
to complete the AWG-KP work in Durban, and that many parts
of the text are complete technically and await a political
decision, although there is still some technical work to be
done, including on land use, land use change and forestry
(LULUCF). He stressed on the need for effective time
management in Durban, and on the usefulness of the time
allocated to the AWG-KP in Durban.
Ambassador Diseko from South Africa, which will be the
President of the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change and the CMP when it
is held in Durban at the end of the year, said that their
primary goal was to ensure that Panama produced a
negotiating text for Durban. She said that global problems
require global solutions, and re-affirmed South Africa's
belief in multilateralism. Central to the Durban package is
the balance across the two negotiating tracks, the AWG-KP
and AWG-LCA (Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative
Action under the Convention), and the balance within the
negotiating tracks, she said. The Cancun decisions must be
operationalized, and there should be a focus on key
political issues, of which the Kyoto Protocol's second
commitment period is central, she said.
Argentina, speaking for the Group of 77 and China, said
that two weeks ago, G77 and China Ministers re-affirmed
their political commitment to the Kyoto Protocol's second
commitment period. It said that the second commitment
period is the central priority and cornerstone for Durban,
and any other result will undermine the rules based system,
and cast a shadow on multilateralism. In accordance with
the Bali Road Map (adopted by the UNFCCC COP in 2007), the
AWG-LCA has to advance in parallel to the AWG-KP. This is
the only way for a successful, comprehensive and balanced
outcome in Durban based on the principles of the UNFCCC, in
particular equity and common but differentiated
responsibilities and respective capabilities, it said.
There should be no gap between the commitment periods, and
the level of mitigation ambition by developed countries
must be raised, it added.
Grenada, speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island
States (AOSIS), said that the Kyoto Protocol is the only
legally binding agreement that we now have that puts in
place quantified emission reduction commitments by Annex I
Parties, and it is essential to build upon it. Failure to
secure ambitious emission reductions in a second commitment
period will compromise the survival of small island states
and other vulnerable countries, it said. It asked the three
Kyoto Parties that have announced that they will not take
on QELROs in a second commitment period to reconsider "what
might be viewed as extreme positions", as there should be
no technical impediments, only political ones. [The 3
Parties are Canada, Japan and Russia.]
It said that its expectations for Durban are: 1) a
substantial increase in mitigation ambition from Annex I
Parties, 2) establishing a second commitment period from
2013-2017 with a single legally binding base year of 1990,
as part of a two track outcome that complements a legally
binding outcome under the AWG-LCA, 3) closing loopholes -
LULUCF, surplus assigned amount units (AAUs), new gases,
and improving mechanisms, and 4) ensuring the continuity of
the Kyoto Protocol commitments through 2012, with new and
more ambitious Annex B commitments pending ratification and
entry into the force of the second commitment period.
Democratic Republic of Congo, for the African Group, said
that agreement to a second commitment period under the
Kyoto Protocol is absolutely essential, and ensuring the
full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol through a second
commitment period in Durban has also been emphasized by all
African Ministers as an utmost priority. For Durban, deep
and binding emission reductions in accordance with science
and equity is required, it said.
The African Group's expectations for Durban are the
adoption of an amendment to Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol
(for the second commitment period) and the strengthening of
Annex I Party commitments in a manner consistent with their
fair contribution towards limiting warming to below 1.5
degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. It said that,
"Africa cannot conceive of a future climate regime in which
we dismantle a central pillar we have built together. We
must build the rest of the climate regime up around it, and
continue the Kyoto Protocol through a second and subsequent
commitment periods".
Gambia, on behalf of the least developed countries (LDCs),
stressed on the importance of a legally binding framework.
The Kyoto Protocol must continue, and the second commitment
period urgently agreed in Durban in order to avoid a gap as
agreed in Cancun, and according to the decision that
established the AWG-KP six years ago, it said. It urged
those Parties that championed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997
and after to take up the mantle once again. Environmental
integrity should be ensued through limiting the carbon
markets and closing loopholes. It said that in order to
break the logjam, the Kyoto Protocol's second commitment
period is key towards ensuring a legally binding agreement
under the AWG-LCA that is in accordance with equity and
common but differentiated responsibilities. It could not
accept political decisions in either negotiating track.
Bolivia, on behalf of the Bolivarian Alliance for the
Peoples of Our America (ALBA), said that it was shameless
the way that more conditions and flexibilities are being
required by Annex I Parties to comply with what they should
be doing by law. It said that it was building alliances
with all countries, particularly the LDCs, and that it
could not accept making the African continent the tomb of
the Kyoto Protocol.
China said that developed countries have an unshakable
legal, historical and moral obligation to renew the Kyoto
Protocol through a second commitment period, and that the
outcome of Durban must be based on the Bali Roadmap.
South Africa said that the Kyoto Protocol is central to the
multilateral rules-based system. Failure to reach agreement
on the second commitment period would send a negative
signal to the process; instead we should send a strong
signal to the world that the UNFCCC is still relevant. The
Kyoto Protocol may not be sufficient, but it is necessary,
it said.
Papua New Guinea for the Coalition for Rainforest Nations
said that it had made a proposal for a REDD (Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in
Developing Countries) plus mechanism for results based
action with units creditable under the Kyoto Protocol, as
there is not much progress in the AWG-LCA on new market
mechanisms.
Australia, speaking for the Umbrella Group, said that the
Kyoto Protocol is an important part of efforts to reduce
emissions. Its rules and infrastructure have much to offer
as we transition to a new climate change framework, it
said. It is only one part of the story, as without major
emitters, we cannot deliver. Without a balancing agreement
that covers all major emitters, it makes no sense for the
climate, it said. It stressed on the importance of the
continuity of the market-based approach, which is the
keystone of new regime, and urged for political next steps,
courage, and pragmatism.
The European Union said that balance across and between
both negotiating tracks is important. It said that it was
encouraged with the discussions on a future legally binding
framework and legal form (in the AWG-LCA), and this will
require deeper political attention. It stressed on the need
for market mechanisms post 2012 and that new mechanisms
should be part of the Durban package. It advocated the
establishment of a post 2012 rules based and comprehensive
legally binding framework engaging all major economies, and
said that it was willing to consider a second commitment
period as part of a wider global and comprehensive outcome.
Two recent reports show that substantial progress has been
made by member states in breaking the link between economic
growth and emissions, it said. Since 1990, it has reduced
its emissions by 15.5%, while its economy grew by 41%.
However, the EU alone cannot solve the climate problem, and
the Durban outcome must address this fact, it said.
AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic
publication providing reposted commentary and analysis on
African issues, with a particular focus on U.S. and
international policies. AfricaFocus Bulletin is edited by
William Minter.
AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org.
Please write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to
the bulletin, or to suggest material for inclusion. For
more information about reposted material, please contact
directly the original source mentioned. For a full archive
and other resources, see http://www.africafocus.org
|
