APPLICATION OF KYOTO PROTOCOL TO BELARUS
(14156/06)
Letter from the Chairman to Ian Pearson
MP, Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
At its meeting on 22 November 2006 Sub-Committee
D considered your Explanatory Memorandum dated 2 November on the
above Proposal.
We agree that it is crucial to ensure that the
targets set by Belarus are consistent with the global fight against
climate change. We also share your views with regard to legal
base and subsidiarity. Consequently, we are content to clear the
line you are proposing to take and we trust that you will pursue
these matters with vigour in discussions with other Member States
and the Commission and report back to us in due course.
22 November 2006
Letter from Ian Pearson MP to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of the 22 November
regarding the outcomes of the issues discussed in Explanatory
Memorandum (EM) 14156/06 of 18 October 2006, concerning a proposal
for a Council Decision establishing the position to be adopted
on behalf of the European Community with regard to a proposal
by Belarus for an amendment of the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC.
As stated in EM 14156/06, the amendment was
debated at the Second conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol
(COP/MOP2) and Twelfth Conference of the Parties (COP12) to the
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Nairobi
in November, with the result that Belarus were successful in their
request to be added to Annex B (ie countries with a quantified
reduction commitment of their greenhouse gases) to the Kyoto Protocol.
Belarus did make a number of concessions during
the negotiations in Nairobi. They had originally proposed a reduction
commitment of 95%, but finally agreed to reduce their emissions
to 92% of their base year (1992) in the period 2008-12. As stated
in EM 14156/06, the UK did not support Belarus's base year because
their emissions are currently well below 92% of base year levels
(at around 65%) but the target they have adopted is as low as
any target listed in Annex B. The EU argued this line in negotiations
in the contact group. Belarus also agreed to an addition of 7%
of their assigned amount to the "commitment period reserve"
the amount they cannot trade in 2008-12.
There are other countries listed in Annex B
with current emission levels well below their targets. The UK
argued in EU discussions in Nairobi that it is now nine years
after Kyoto and more realistic targets are appropriate, to avoid
(a) gifting Belarus a potential windfall profit from the sale
of "hot air" under the Protocol's emissions trading
scheme and (b) setting an unwelcome precedent for any future negotiations
with countries seeking to join Annex B. Belarus gave assurances
that any income from emissions trading would be invested in environment/climate
friendly schemes. This reassured all non-EU Parties and a majority
of EU Member States.
Faced with the prospect of a vote on the proposal,
which Belarus had the right and the clear intention to ask for
(which would have been unprecedented in the UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol
process and which the EU could not win) the UK accepted the majority
view that the EU should not oppose the proposal. Had another Party
opposed the proposal and a vote been called, the opposition of
the UK and one or two other Member States meant that the EU (on
a MS by MS basis) would have abstained. The result, however, would
have been the same—Belarus would have been deemed to have
secured acceptance to its proposal.
Finally, in order for the amendment to come
into force, it must be ratified by three quarters of the Parties
to the Kyoto Protocol. Since the UK did not support the decision
we are not obliged to ratify the amendment.
17 January 2007
| 
