On Friday 11, two new texts have been published -  the chairs of the working groups for Kyoto protocol and for the Convention /group on Long-term Cooperative Action - have published text for each of the tracks where they summarize the talks up to now and lay down options for negotiations.

 

The group of Small island states (including Tuvalu or Maldives) pointed attention to their proposal of an amendment of the Kyoto Protocol and a legally binding Protocol in the LCA track. Their demands to limit the rise of temperature on 1.5 °C and emissions at 350 ppm have been supported by calls on survival or climate justice by more than 100 countries (including African Group) and also by millions of people all around the world.

 

After the leak of Danish text on Tuesday, which was immediately rejected by developing countries, the PM Rassmussen is now under strong pressure from developing countries, so that the current two texts properly reflect the positions and proposals of developing countries. With this development, a legally binding agreement on a long-term climate action including the US returned back to the table as an option – it remains to be decided at highest level.

 

Texts aare being discussed and feedbacked, but there are still many issues such as mid-term and long-term mitigation goals as well as financing that remain unresolved and that will be only decided by the high-level segment towards the end of this week. The texts look quite well in deforestation parts, adaptation part, there are some good elements on reform of carbon credit trading; however, for example the hot air or AAUs issue remains very weakly touched. Also the compliance part is weak in both texts.

 

Kyoto protocol developed countries commitments are not sufficient and we have not seen a move in this subject. If all current developed country pledges are counted together, they represent between 13-19% reductions from 1990 levels, which is far below the science. On the other hand, the same analysis shows that developing countries have as a group fulfilled the 15-30% reduction scenarios below business as usual (actually, some like Brazil even over-pledged). This is a key issue for developing countries – they want to see that developed countries will take serious commitments before they start taking commitments and getting involved/ committed in the new agreement. Developed countries are trying to push for a single agreement based on the LCA text and not to focus on the Kyoto protocol – by this, they are undermining the trust in the negotiaitons and making the developing countries really angry up to obstructionist. Developing countries are legitimally concerned that the only political agreement on emission reductions will be a greenwash.

 

Heads of States might come with a move. They need to raise the commitments significantly. The fact that the EU has not yet risen its commitment to 30% has a strong negative effect on the negotiations, trust of developing countries in the seriousness of European efforts is being lost and other developed countries are unwilling to raise their pledges when EU is reluctant to do so. Germany or Poland are examples of countries blocking the passage to 30%. More move on this issue is expected from the European Council to happen here in Copenhagen on Thursday/Friday. Insufficient commitments under Kyoto protocol led the Africa Group to leave the negotiations temporarily, as they are worried that developed countries will shift the burden of emission reduction on the developing countries in the new treaty text instead of commiting to strong reductions under Kyoto protocol.

 

The issue of banking the surplus AAUs from the first commitment period in the second period is also decisive for the reduction targets. According to Point Carbon study for CAN Europe, the surplus amount is higher then emission reduction pledges of all developed countries now. That means, if hot air is used for compliance, no emission reductions in Annex I countries will have to be done. That would lead to carbon market collapse and would make the climate chaos reality.

 

Key country here, Russia, is willing to get rid of its hot air under some conditions. The EU, another key player, has not taken position so far. Its position is being blocked by several CEE EU countries (PL, HU, SK, RO, LV, LT, EE not sure) that lobby for full banking of AAUs, although they do not have a real reason – most of them will sell their surplus by 2012 so they will not have much to bank. It is necessary to overcome this impass in CEE as this is blocking and endangering the whole negotiations as EU is a key here. EU leaders need to come with an AAU position when meeting here.

 

Emissions from land use and forestry will be accounted for in the next commitment period. There is a dispute on how it should be done, what should be the baseline by which they going to be measured. Basically, this can be done comparing LULUCF emissions to a certain year emissions as a baseline, or set up a projected scenario baseline that will assume the theoretical development of the emissions. This scenario baseline is easily subject to false assumption that would lead to allocation of surplus allowances, that wouldn't be based on real emission reductions in LULUCF.

EU countries (AT, SWE, FIN, CZ, SK, LT, LV, EE) that could be using this loophole in the future support an EU position to set projected scenario baselines, while other more progressive parties (FR, UK) advocate for a fair and clear baseline year approach, most probably 1990.

 

On finance, there has not been much progress so far. The only new figure, which appeared, came from the European Council meeting in Brussels on Thursday and Friday – 2.4 bln EUR each year. However, as NGOs pointed and developing countries noted, this money is nor new or additional, it is largely old ODA pledges repacked into new brand.

In the texts, the principles for long-term financing are acknowledged (such as adequate, scaled up, predictable), there is some language on institutions (leaving the door open for existing institutions such as the GEF or World Bank). The text does not include many proposals on innovative sources of financing such as levy on bunker fuels or air travel, or auctioning of international emission allowances (AAUs).

It remains clear that long-term finance will also be a subject to high-level discussions and that the US administration will potentially bring some finance to Copenhagen. The concrete number may not appear in the text, what is important is that the stability and predictability of resources is guaranteed (either through strong political will or implementation of innovative mechanisms).

Part of the financial debate is how money will be spent. The discussion is going on whether only autonomous, unilateral actions should be subject to monitoring, verification and reporting (MRV), or whether MRV should only apply to internationally supported actions.

 

Saturday marked the largest demonstrations in Copenhagen, but also the biggest ones in history of climate change negotiations. Estimate say up to 100 000 joined the rally through Copenhagen city up to the Bella Centre. The participants of the rally, from Denmark, many EU countries but also many developing countries, wanted to express their strong wish for fair, ambitious and binding climate change treaty. Most of the rally was calm and pieceful, there were minor accidental clashes. Some arrested said they go to the Court because of inappropriate police behaviour at the march.