1 KYOTO PROTOCOL: UPDATE ON ACTIVITIES OF THE AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON FURTHER COMMITMENTS FOR ANNEX I PARTIES UNDER THE KP. PRESENTED BY SETH OSAFO AMCEN LEGAL CONSULTANT TO AFRICAN NEGOTIATORS, UNFCCC AND KYOTO PROTOCOL

2 KYOTO PROTOCOL Kyoto Protocol adopted in December 1997 at COP 3 in Kyoto. Kyoto Protocol adopted in December 1997 at COP 3 in Kyoto. Under the Protocol, the Annex I Parties committed themselves to achieve emission reduction targets by reducing their overall emissions of six greenhouse gases by an average of 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels between (the first commitment period). Specific targets differed from country to country. Under the Protocol, the Annex I Parties committed themselves to achieve emission reduction targets by reducing their overall emissions of six greenhouse gases by an average of 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels between (the first commitment period). Specific targets differed from country to country.

3 The Protocol entered into force on 16 February 2005 and now has more than 184 parties. The Protocol entered into force on 16 February 2005 and now has more than 184 parties. In 2005,COP/MOP 1, held in Montreal established the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Further commitments of Annex I Parties pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 9 of the Kyoto Protocol. The mandate given to the Ad hoc Working Group was to consider the commitments of the Annex I Parties for subsequent commitment periods (first commitment period end in 2012) at least seven years before the end of the first commitment period. (Second commitment period begins in 2013) In 2005,COP/MOP 1, held in Montreal established the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Further commitments of Annex I Parties pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 9 of the Kyoto Protocol. The mandate given to the Ad hoc Working Group was to consider the commitments of the Annex I Parties for subsequent commitment periods (first commitment period end in 2012) at least seven years before the end of the first commitment period. (Second commitment period begins in 2013)

4 Some of the issues being discussed by the Ad hoc Working Group include the following: Some of the issues being discussed by the Ad hoc Working Group include the following: Proposed amendments to the Kyoto Protocol pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 9 involving Annex I emission reductions; Proposed amendments to the Kyoto Protocol pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 9 involving Annex I emission reductions; The aggregate scale of emission reductions by Annex I Parties, the contributions by Parties individually or jointly to the aggregate scale The aggregate scale of emission reductions by Annex I Parties, the contributions by Parties individually or jointly to the aggregate scale Issues identified in paragraph 49 of its conclusions and this includes: the flexibility mechanisms, LULUCF, greenhouse gases, sectors and sources, potential consequences of tools, policies, measures and methodologies, aviation and bunker fuels, and legal matters, Issues identified in paragraph 49 of its conclusions and this includes: the flexibility mechanisms, LULUCF, greenhouse gases, sectors and sources, potential consequences of tools, policies, measures and methodologies, aviation and bunker fuels, and legal matters,

5 ANNEX I EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS The ad hoc working group has been considering the individual and aggregate emission reduction targets of Annex I Parties. The ad hoc working group has been considering the individual and aggregate emission reduction targets of Annex I Parties. Instead of coming out with their common and agreed targets, individual Parties included in Annex I have been coming out with their own targets, with some making pledges with underlying assumptions. Instead of coming out with their common and agreed targets, individual Parties included in Annex I have been coming out with their own targets, with some making pledges with underlying assumptions.

6 NEW ZEALAND: Mid term target of reducing emissions by 10-20% below 1990 levels by (Depends on the assumption that there will be recourse to the flexibility mechanism and carbon markets due to the high cost of domestic mitigation.) NEW ZEALAND: Mid term target of reducing emissions by 10-20% below 1990 levels by (Depends on the assumption that there will be recourse to the flexibility mechanism and carbon markets due to the high cost of domestic mitigation.) JAPAN: National target of reducing emissions by 15% from 2005 levels by target did not include flexibility mechanisms and LULUCF. JAPAN: National target of reducing emissions by 15% from 2005 levels by target did not include flexibility mechanisms and LULUCF.

7 CANADA: Reduction of 20% from 2006 by A mid term target of 60-70% relative to 2006 by CANADA: Reduction of 20% from 2006 by A mid term target of 60-70% relative to 2006 by RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Reduction of % by 2020 from 1990 levels. RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Reduction of % by 2020 from 1990 levels. BELARUS: Reduction of 5-10 from 1990 levels by BELARUS: Reduction of 5-10 from 1990 levels by NORWAY: Reduction of 30% from 1990 levels by 2020, with LULUCF accounting for 3-6%. NORWAY: Reduction of 30% from 1990 levels by 2020, with LULUCF accounting for 3-6%.

8 EUROPEAN UNION: Reduction of at least 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 and by 30% if other developed countries commit themselves to comparable emission reductions. Economically more advanced developing countries should also contribute adequately according to their responsibilities and capabilities. EUROPEAN UNION: Reduction of at least 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 and by 30% if other developed countries commit themselves to comparable emission reductions. Economically more advanced developing countries should also contribute adequately according to their responsibilities and capabilities. AUSTRALIA: Reduction by 25% at 2000 levels by 2020 if the Parties agree to an ambitious global deal. AUSTRALIA: Reduction by 25% at 2000 levels by 2020 if the Parties agree to an ambitious global deal. USA: Not a Party to the Kyoto Protocol but proposing zero per cent reduction below 1990 levels by 2020.Proposal by US House Representatives for a reduction target of 1 to 4 per cent below 1990 levels by USA: Not a Party to the Kyoto Protocol but proposing zero per cent reduction below 1990 levels by 2020.Proposal by US House Representatives for a reduction target of 1 to 4 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.

9 Developing countries are calling for deeper and ambitious reduction targets by Annex I Parties. Developing countries are calling for deeper and ambitious reduction targets by Annex I Parties. Africa has proposed a cut of 40% by 2020 at 1990 levels at a cut of 80% by Africa has proposed a cut of 40% by 2020 at 1990 levels at a cut of 80% by Bolivia, Venezuela, Paraguay, Malaysia and Sri Lanka have proposed that Annex I Parties at their emission by 49% at 1990 levels in the commitment period of Bolivia, Venezuela, Paraguay, Malaysia and Sri Lanka have proposed that Annex I Parties at their emission by 49% at 1990 levels in the commitment period of AOSIS : Reduction of at least 45% below 1990 levels by 2020 and more than 95% below 1990 levels AOSIS : Reduction of at least 45% below 1990 levels by 2020 and more than 95% below 1990 levels 2050.

10 At the just ended session in Bangkok where it appears Parties were now settling down for serious negotiations, the European Union and other developed country Parties came out to say that they want to KILL THE KYOTO PROTOCOL AND REPLACE IT WITH ANOTHER PROTOCOL WHICH THE US COULD JOIN. At the just ended session in Bangkok where it appears Parties were now settling down for serious negotiations, the European Union and other developed country Parties came out to say that they want to KILL THE KYOTO PROTOCOL AND REPLACE IT WITH ANOTHER PROTOCOL WHICH THE US COULD JOIN.

11 MAJOR OUTSTANDING ISSUES Interpretation of mandate-whether narrow or broad and what issues to include in amendments to the Kyoto Protocol; Interpretation of mandate-whether narrow or broad and what issues to include in amendments to the Kyoto Protocol; Whether to focus only on amendment to Annex B of the Protocol. Whether to focus only on amendment to Annex B of the Protocol. Differentiation among Parties with a new category of advanced developing countries to be created. Differentiation among Parties with a new category of advanced developing countries to be created.

POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF THE WORK OF THE AWG-KP Best case scenario Amendment to Annex B plus the consequential amendments. Amendment to Annex B plus other amendments to the Kyoto Protocol (flexible mechanisms, CDM,JI.ET.LULUCF, Compliance, responses measures. New Protocol to replace the Kyoto Protocol-if amendments extensive. Worst case scenario No agreement-nothing happens but action of second commitment period delayed.

POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF THE WORK OF THE AWGLCA Several COP decisions on issues being addressed under the Bali Action Plan, No amendments to Convention possible at Copenhagen due to six months rule. A process could be set in motion to consider amendment proposals to be adopted at a future date. A new Protocol adopted in accordance with Article 17 of the Convention to replace the Kyoto Protocol based on Parties submissions. Some kind of agreement that will cover issues on which agreement has been reached with a mandate to use it as basis for negotiating a new treaty. A simple decision to suspend COP 16 and CMP 5 and for the Conferences to resume at COP 15bis and CMP 5bis Deadlock and no outcome possible- but face saving measure will be needed.