UN climate talks revive to face up to Copenhagen hangover

UN climate talks revive to face up to Copenhagen hangoverThe UNFCCC will meet for the first time this year in Bonn this weekend. Plotting the course of the climate talks for 2010 will be no easy task, with Copenhagen still looming large in the rearview mirror...

Climate change negotiators from around the world will meet in Bonn this weekend for the first time in 2010. Ostensibly, the 3-day meeting will aim to set out the work programme for the UN talks in the run-up to this year's summit in Mexico (COP16). Effectively, this means picking up the pieces after the debacle in Copenhagen.

The UNFCCC functions through two negotiating tracks or working groups (on long-term cooperative action - AWG-LCA - and the Kyoto Protocol - AWG-KP), which work on the issues to be covered by an international agreement. These working groups made far less progress - in terms of resolving the outstanding issues - than had been hoped for at Copenhagen.

Both working groups do have mandates continue their work, based on their final reports adopted in Copenhagen. However, the mandate for the AWG-LCA does not contain language requesting a legally-binding instrument, despite significant efforts from some parties to get it agreed.

The question of whether a second commitment period after 2012 under Kyoto Protocol should be part of the final outcome was put back on the agenda by the Chinese climate change negotiator on a visit to Europe. He urged the EU to keep to its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol beyond its current phase. This prompted the UK government to indicate its openness to a continuation of Kyoto, however, the European Commission remains sceptical about the prospect of two separate climate treaties.

Depressingly, most the main issues still remain open. These include: the level and nature of emissions reductions for developed countries and climate financing for developing countries (including fast track financing to be ready from next year). While the Copenhagen Accord dealt with these issues, it was far from conclusive.

Other issues, include agreement on how to monitor and verify emissions reductions, compliance arrangements, market mechanisms (existing and new), LULUCF (how to account for emissions from land use and land use change and forestry), REDD+ (how to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation), the architecture for climate financing, bunker fuels (including proposals for a tax) and the inclusion of HFCs, a group of very potent greenhouse gases whose concentrations are growing rapidly.

These issues will all need to be resolved in advance of a full, legally-binding UN treaty. So, even if the final treaty is not concluded in 2010, many of these issues will still have to be resolved this year already in order for there to be a final treaty next year. (see blog)

All of this of course ignores the elephant in the room: the Copenhagen Accord itself.

To date, over 120 of the 193 parties to the UNFCCC have made submissions on the accord. The vast majority of these have indicated their willingness to associate with the accord. However some, like Ecuador, Nauru, Kuwait and the Cook Islands, have officially ruled out association. Many of those parties yet to respond are also critical of the accord (like Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba and Saudi Arabia).

The proponents of the accord want its content 'anchored' in the UNFCCC process, as the European Commission puts it (see blog). This would mean implementing its conclusions on climate financing, for example, under a UN framework.

However, clearly a number of countries oppose the accord outright. Meanwhile, some of the key countries that are associated see it merely as a political statement external to the UN climate process that merely gives some kind of guidance to the process.

With such fundamental issues still wide open, it is little wonder that key figures continue to play down expectations for the UN climate talks in 2010.

As for the EU, which did not cover itself in glory in Copenhagen, it is running out of time to proactively shape the UN climate talks. The spring summit of European leaders made no real progress on sorting out the unresolved issues in the EU position (see blog).

The EU needs to make clear that it will oppose the inclusion of any loopholes (like the banking of surplus AAUs, a.k.a. 'hot air', and dodgy accounting rules for emissions from LULUCF, i.e. forestry). Upping the EU's emissions pledge to an unconditional 30% reduction would also be a major statement of intent with regards to 'reinvigorating global action on climate change'. Finally, it needs to swiftly implement its promise to give €2.4bn per year in fast-start climate financing to developing countries. It should also make clear that this will be new funding and additional to existing development aid promises.