Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society
for the Protection of Birds
INTRODUCTION
1. The RSPB is Europe's largest wildlife
charity with over one million members. We manage one of the largest
conservation estates in the UK with 196 nature reserves, covering
more than 131,000 hectares. The RSPB is part of the BirdLife International
partnership, a global alliance of independent national conservation
organisations working in more than 100 countries worldwide.
2. We consider that human-induced climate
change poses the biggest long-term threat to global biodiversity.
A paper in Nature (Extinction risk from climate change,
8 January 2004) by a large group of scientists (including one
from the RSPB) indicates that in sample regions covering about
20% of the Earth's land surface "15 to 37% of species in
our sample of regions and taxa will be `committed to extinction'
as a result of mid-range climate warming scenarios for 2050."
3. To avoid such a catastrophe, the anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change need to be
cut hard and rapidly, with global emissions peaking within the
next 10 years and then declining steeply. We therefore actively
support the Climate Change Convention and Kyoto Protocol processes
that provide the global framework for greenhouse gas emission
reduction.
THE LIKELY
OUTCOME FROM
THE MEETINGS
IN NAIROBI
4. In Nairobi, there will be four main strands
concerning a post-2012 regime and we first discuss them separately
here, before attempting to guess the likely outcome of the meeting
as a whole. Any final post-2012 agreement will need to bring together
all four strands but, for a variety of reasons, they are currently
being pursued separately.
Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for
Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG 2)
5. This group is tasked with negotiating
emission reduction commitments for developing countries after
Kyoto's first commitment period ends in 2012. The group was established
in Montreal in line with article 3.9 of the Kyoto Protocol which
says that "consideration of such commitments [shall be initiated]
at least seven years before the end of the first commitment period"
(ie start in 2005).
6. Although the AWG was formally established
in Montreal it will, in fact, only begin its real work in Nairobi.
In took some time to set it up, and especially to elect a Chair,
in Bonn in May, and its overall approach to how it pursues its
work is not yet decided, although the Chair has issued a short
paper on the subject.
7. On the positive side, the new Chair of
the Group is very experienced, well known and highly respected
by most negotiators; he is Michael Zammit Cutajar of Malta, for
many years the Executive Secretary of the Climate Change Convention.
It is clear that Mr Cutajar wants the group to proceed on a logical
fashion, first analysing the science to determine the overall
level of the targets required and them proceeding to negotiate
appropriate national targets.
8. It is questionable, however, whether
the Group will be able to make much progress on such a complex
topic within the limited timetable it has set for itself so far,
with only two meetings scheduled for 2007. A number of countries
will, as they always do, try to slow the process down, notably
some of the OPEC countries. Also, this is a group under the Kyoto
Protocol and so non-members of the Protocol have little or no
say in its conclusions. The United States can attend meetings
and speak at them, but as an observer not an active participant.
Whilst this is both inevitable and desirable, given the stance
of the Bush Administration on Kyoto, it does raise potential concerns
about future US participation in any agreement negotiated without
its input.
Dialogue on long-term co-operative action
9. In parallel with the formal AWG negotiation
process for developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol, Montreal
also initiated an informal process under the Climate Change Convention
to discuss "long-term co-operative action on climate change
(without prejudice to any future negotiations)".
10. This is potentially a very useful process
because it includes all nations and can, in theory, discuss issues
such as the types on commitment that large developing countries
might take on. So far, it has not lived up to expectations. Its
first meeting in Bonn in May was uninspiring and does not give
hope for much progress in the immediate future.
Group on reduced (avoided) tropical deforestation
11. In Montreal, Papua New Guinea and Costa
Rica, backed by a group of other, often very poor, developing
countries, put forward a proposal under which countries might
take on a commitment to limit their rates of deforestation and
claim credit for the emissions thus avoided.
12. This is a very important proposal for
any post-2012 regime because tropical deforestation accounts for
between 20 and 25% of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions
and so anything that can be done to halt, or at least slow down,
the process has important implications for climate change, quite
apart from biodiversity and other co-benefits. (Note that the
proposal does not concern crediting sequestration of carbon in
forests but avoiding the emissions from cutting them down, in
the same way that energy efficiency or renewables avoid emissions.)
13. The Papua New Guinea proposal is also
important because it is for a so-called "sectoral commitment"
for developing countries, which are not being formally debated
elsewhere, although there is much informal discussion. Such a
commitment would take the form of a developing country voluntarily
taking on a commitment to limit emissions from a particular economic
sector to a lower level than would otherwise occur. (Once made,
a commitment would be binding for a particular period.) For example,
China might take on a commitment to limit emissions from its electricity
generation sector. If it emitted less than its commitment, it
might then trade its surplus emissions in a continuation of the
Kyoto emissions trading scheme, potentially unleashing considerable
sums of money for investment in green energy.
14. In Montreal, a group was established
under the Convention to examine the Papua New Guinea proposal
in greater detail and report back to the Conference of Parties
at the end of 2007. Discussions began in May, in Bonn, and most
countries (including the EU and USA) welcomed the proposal, although
it was widely agreed that it needed a lot more work to make it
operational. The only major country to oppose the proposal was
Brazil, for a number of reasons decided upon at a very high political
level.
15. It is currently hard to tell how far
the talks on avoided deforestation will get in Nairobi. It has
too much goodwill from both powerful Northern blocs and some of
the poorest developing countries to stop it. However, to be effective
in terms of releasing substantial funding, the proposal probably
needs to be included in the Kyoto Protocol, yet Brazil opposes
this and it is hard for the USA to actively promote the inclusion
of something it wants to work in an agreement to which it does
not subscribe.
Review of the Kyoto Protocol (Article 9)
16. This process should begin in Nairobi.
The Protocol (in its article 9) unambiguously states that the
first such review should take place at the second meeting of the
parties to the Protocol, which is the Nairobi meeting. The Protocol
also says that the review should be coordinated with the reviews
of both implementation and the adequacy of commitments in the
Climate Change Convention.
17. The review should include everything,
from the science to the level of emissions reduction commitments
and should thus be the first step in considering what a whole
post-2012 regime should look like. However, there is much that
is contentious in a review. For example, the list of "developed
countries" included in both the Convention and the Protocol
is now out of dates, essentially comprising OECD members in 1992.
There are not only a number of new OECD members (usually the definition
of being "developed") but some prosperous countries
that should, in fairness, be classified as developed, such as
Singapore.
18. More importantly, it is increasingly
clear that some of the large, rapidly industrialising countries
will need to limit their emissions it substantial climate change
is to be avoided. Whilst the developed countries should take the
lead in cutting emissions, these cuts will be insufficient if
not accompanied by some emission limitation effort by countries
such as India, China, Brazil and South Africa. Even if the USA,
the largest emitter, were to reduce its emissions to zero by 2025
and the other developed countries by 2020, if developing country
emissions continued to rise then a 400ppm atmospheric concentration
stabilisation goal would be missed shortly after 2025 and a 450ppm
goal by about 2035. (To achieve the EU target of staying below
a temperature rise of two degree Celsius atmospheric concentrations
of greenhouse gases need to stay below 450ppm.)
19. However, the major developing countries
have excellent negotiators and they are unlikely to wish to rush
into talks that will result in their having to limit their emissions.
The whole Nairobi process
20. The RSPB is hopeful that the article
9 review will be started in Nairobi, which would constitute significant
progress in itself. We do not anticipate breakthoughs in either
the AWG 2 process or the avoided deforestation talks but this
would not necessarily be disappointing. At this stage, there is
still much groundwork to be done in terms of analysis which could
also feed into the Article 9 review. If the review goes ahead,
we anticipate that the steam there is will go out of the Dialogue
because it will be largely replaced by the review, although it
would be a pity if it did because the Dialogue has a potentially
valuable role to play in doing both background and additional
work to the other three processes.
21. A significant practical difficulty in
Nairobi is likely to be that meetings will be held in the UN compound
some distance from the centre of the city where most delegates
will stay. It appears that conference sessions will consequently
be restricted to the "normal" UN day of 10 am until
6 pm on weekdays, as opposed to working until at least 9 pm and
over weekends as in the norm in the international climate process.
THE LIKELY
SHAPE OF
AN AGREEMENT
POST 2012
22. Most countries, certainly most of those
that are parties to the Kyoto Protocol, strongly advocate the
continuance of a similar regime. In particular, they envisage
continuing but more stringent developed country emission reduction
commitments together with the Protocol's so-called flexibility
instruments: the emissions trading mechanism, the Clean Development
Mechanism and Joint Implementation. This is therefore what is
likely to emerge.
23. However, beneath this headline position
is host of other, more detailed positions which differ considerably.
Whilst the science clearly indicates that the large, rapidly industrialising
countries need to take on some sort of emission limitation commitment,
there is no general agreement on this; indeed, there has been
little or no formal discussion of it. Whilst there is considerable
support for the Papua New Guinea avoided deforestation proposal,
it is a moot point as to whether it should be included within
the Kyoto Protocol or the broader Convention, and there are good
arguments either way although, on balance, the RSPB considers
that the Kyoto-based approach would work best. The precise shape
of any agreement post-2012 is thus far from clear.
24. As the largest emitter in the world,
the current stance of the USA on the Kyoto Protocol, and climate
change more generally, is clearly very important and of concern
to the nations remaining in the Protocol (ie currently the rest
of the world with the minor exception of Australia). The Bush
Administration's formal position in the international climate
process has been detached, in that they have said that they will
only concern themselves with Convention matters and not interfere
in those concerning the Protocol. However, although nominally
the same, this position has recently slipped considerably and
the US is more actively trying to influence the post-2012 negotiations
although, as mentioned earlier, the USA has no formal say in Kyoto-related
decisions.
25. There is a widespread view that engaging
with the Bush Administration on climate change is probably a waste
of time and also counterproductive, in that they would probably
try to wreck any constructive negotiations. However, it is obviously
of concern that a treaty could be negotiated with no US input
and which, for that reason alone, might be hard for any future
administration to sign up to.
26. Fortunately, the situation in the USA
is not a bad as it at first appears. There is considerable interest
at US state level in cap and trade schemes, and the two biggest
initiatives are led by states with Republican Governors: Governor
Pataki in New York who led on the establishment of the Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the North Eastern states and Governor
Schwarzenegger in California. Perhaps more importantly have been
initiatives in the Senate, such as the McCain/Lieberman Climate
Stewardship Bill for a US cap and trade scheme covering 85% of
US emissions which narrowly failed by a vote of 43 to 55 in October
2003, and which may well be introduced. (John McCain is the Republican
senior Senator for Arizona and Joe Lieberman is the Democrat a
Senator for Connecticut.)
27. More recently, the "Sense of the
Senate" in June 2005 was that "Congress should enact
a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based
limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow,
stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions...", adding
a rider that this should not significantly harm the US economy,
and in a way that will encourage comparable action by other nations,
meaning the rapidly industrialising nations in particular. In
May 2006, the House of Representatives adopted similar "sense
of the Congress" language.
28. There are thus significant US initiatives
on climate change outside of the White House. Indeed, it is possible
that domestic legislation will be enacted to combat climate change
before President Bush's term of office comes to an end. It seems
likely that any future President would find it hard to ignore
climate change and the international process as the current Administration
has done, especially if Federal legislation is passed.
THE POSITION
OF THE
UK GOVERNMENT AND
OF THE
EU IN THE
DISCUSSIONS
29. It is vital that the EU continues to
take a lead in the climate negotiations, and that the UK with
our major allies on climate change (primarily Germany and France)
should continue to lead the EU. Whilst we have had some reservations
about UK and EU leadership in the past, there are simply no other
countries or blocs with either the inclination, ability or economic
clout to lead, other than the EU. The developing countries have
their own leaders, notably South Africa which is currently chair
of the G77, but both developed and developing country leads are
essential.
30. In the past, EU and UK leadership has
sometimes been less competent than might have been hoped but it
has, at least, been consistent. The Prime Minister's parallel
international initiatives in the G8 and other fora have been generally
helpful, although the environmental groups have disagreed about
the detail.
31. The UK's rising carbon dioxide emissions
have tended to undermine its leadership position in recent years,
in spite of government protestations that they plan to rectify
this deficiency. We are, however, likely to meet our Kyoto target.
The fact that the EU countries have over-allocated allowances
to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme has also damaged the EU's leadership
credibility. However, it is a sad fact that most other countries
are having even less success in curtailing emissions than we are,
and so the UK and EU are still in a relative lead, but an unambiguous
lead would clearly be better.
September 2006
| 
