An end to Kyoto Protocol?

By: Hilary Chiew on December 12th, 2008

Will the Kyoto Protocol – the global treaty that requires developed countries to shave 5% off their carbon emissions from the 1990 level – be extended when its first commitment phase ends in 2012?

Or will it be replaced by a new regime that compels the developing world to take on emission reduction targets earlier?

The former is generally what the developing countries hope to obtain. The latter is what some in the industrialized nations have appeared to be pushing hard for from the onset of the 14th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting which was due to end in the Polish city of Poznan on 12 December.

At the next climate talks 12 months hence in Copenhagen, a new set of reduction targets will have to be introduced to prevent global average temperatures rising by more than 2C over their pre-industrial levels.

If they do, scientists believe, the world will face the risk of irreversible and perhaps catastrophic climate change.

Despite the search for something called “a shared vision”, observers warn that a new treaty to replace Kyoto could trap developing countries into taking on an unfair share of the burden.

The principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” calls for Annex I countries – the industrialised countries which have benefited from 150 years of carbon-propelled growth – to reduce their share of carbon emissions so that developing countries get some “environmental space” to catch up on development.

Based on greenhouse gas emission figures from the baseline year of 1990, emissions per capita from developed countries, home to two billion people, average 15 tonnes, while four billion people in developing countries emit five tonnes each.

Third World Network’s Meena Raman said the European Union and other Annex I countries had been advocating a long-term global target of 50% emissions reductions by 2050 from Day One of the gathering of 189 parties at Poznan.

This would mean a shortened development time frame for all who live in the developing world. The population of the global South is projected to double by 2050 with those in Annex I countries will stabilize by then.

Developing countries criticized what they called the over-emphasis and one-dimensional focus on establishing a global target at a time when the 37-nation Annex I group failed to meet their own targets and had not delivered on their financial and technology transfer promises.

Japan, another Annex I member, infuriated non-Annex I delegates when it pressed for differentiating the developing countries, notably China and India with their large populations and rapid industrialition.

Not long after delegates got down to business in Poznan, frustration was already clear among developing countries, especially members of the Least Developed Countries (LDC) group.

Countries like Bangladesh and the Maldives with vulnerable low-lying coastlines are lamenting that not enough is being done to help them to adapt to rising sea levels which are displacing human settlements, destroying biodiversity and worsening poverty.

Amjad Abdullah from Maldives said he was tired of attending the climate talks which were not being translated into action, so that he could assure his countrymen that help is at hand.

“I can’t keep telling them that I’m trying my best. I can no longer face them; this is my frustration,” he said, adding that adaptation must be treated as importantly as mitigation, particularly for countries like his which is literally sinking.

He said the Maldives had relocated people from places in danger of inundation and built seawalls like the one at its capital Male that was completed in 2000 at a cost of US$136 million.

The average cost of relocating a climate refugee family is about US$100,000. He foresaw a growing number of refugees if the target of limiting global average temperature increase to 2°C is inadequate.

Some of the latest scientific findings recommend a level of 1.5ºC, and suggest bringing down carbon concentrations to 350 parts per million from the present 380ppm.

A warming sea also means that the Maldives is in danger of losing its coral, the backbone of its marine tourism industry.

According to the World Conservation Union’s (IUCN) latest update on global coral status, the world has lost 19% of its coral reefs.

If current trends in carbon emissions continue, the remaining reefs will disappear in the next 20 to 40 years, adversely affecting 500 million people who depend on the reefs for their livelihood.

Shirking responsibilities

Underlining what many see as the failure of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol so far, the coordinator of the G77 and China group, Bernaditas Muller, reminded Annex I Parties not to divert attention by harping on about the need for developing nations to take on emission cuts.

“We, the developing countries, do not have reduction commitments under the Convention. Helping us through adaptation (by providing funds and technology) is not charity, it’s a commitment,” she said.

She added that developing countries had been flexible with the Annex I group, as evidenced by the low Kyoto Protocol emissions reduction targets agreed as an exchange for assistance in enhancing developing nations’ mitigation capabilities.

While it had been written off as a place that could deliver major decisions, many are disappointed that a concrete agreement for the Adaptation Fund (launched at Bali) to be made operational as the key outcome from Poznan did not materialize.

Many like Bernaditas Muller and Meena Raman are not easily confused, and they accused detractors of attempting to kill the Convention and of forgetting its historical context.

Meena placed the blame squarely on Annex I negotiators for stalling progress in all the discussions, causing huge anxieties to negotiators and observers from the G77-China bloc, which represents 130 developing and least developed countries.

“It’s like a bargain that is being extracted when the bargain has not been delivered, and that is a real worry for many of us,” she said in reference to the perceived distorted emphasis and attention to a global goal over other more pressing matters.

“If the Copenhagen agreement is an unfair deal, it’s better not to have a deal. No deal is better than an unfair deal.

“Of course, a good deal would mean that Annex I puts on the table their emission cut figure now and we discuss it. Similarly, the same goes for the United States (when President-elect Barack Obama takes over and signs up to the treaty). There must be no conditions attached,” she said.