Pre-COP Blog

Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban were all seminal COPs for different reasons. Copenhagen struggled to get off the ground, such was the weight of unfulfilled anticipation that it should lead to an all bells and whistles post-2012 climate agreement. In its aftermath, it was up to Cancun to save the climate negotiations process and the role of the United Nations in international climate policy. Partly due to some well choreographed applause, Cancun provided the Copenhagen Accord with a more politically acceptable veneer, and paved the way for big issues to be resolved at Durban.

Looking Backward

Durban Platform for Enhanced Action

The much heralded outcome of the Durban negotiations last year was a two-page COP decision titled "Establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group (AWG) on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action". This decision launches a "process to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties, through a subsidiary body under the Convention hereby established and to be known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action." This new AWG "shall complete its work as early as possible but no later than 2015 in order to adopt this protocol, legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force at the twenty-first session of the [COP in 2015] and for it to come into effect and be implemented from 2020".

Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action

The second important outcome of Durban was the adoption of a non-decision text ultimately compiled as the snappily named "Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention". The mandate of this working group was extended by one year "in order for it to continue its work and reach the agreed outcome pursuant to the Bali Action Plan through decisions adopted by the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth sessions of the Conference of the Parties." The AWG-LCA is intended to terminate at Doha. It may certainly be time for this AWG to be put to bed.

Kyoto Protocol

A key output from Kyoto Protocol discussions in Durban was agreement among certain countries (including Canada and Russia) that there would be a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, beginning in 2013 and the withdrawal of other countries from the Kyoto Protocol. However, despite the symbolic nature of this outcome, fundamental issues remain to be resolved. These include the length of the commitment period, the nature of any commitments taken under the Protocol, and the legal status of any commitments taken.

Looking Forward

Post-2020

It would seem that discussions under the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action will face many challenges in yielding concrete action at Doha. We expect a work plan and organisational issues to be resolved at best. The post-2020 regime has effectively been kicked into the long grass with financing in the intervening period being a key and critical issue.

Green Climate Fund (GCF) and Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN)

Many parties are keen for the AWG-LCA to get wrapped up. Its contribution will be to encapsulate a number of non-binding climate pledges and US lead developments in the form of non-decisions. However, AWG-LCA discussions have paved the way for a number of important factors such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN). Expect developments in respect of these entities at Doha. All eyes are on the private sector facility forming part of the GCF and its governance.

A singular commitment

Whether or not the terms of a second Kyoto Protocol Commitment Period will be agreed at Doha remains to be seen. For those dwindling number of countries that would participate meaningfully, it will be an unfulfilling experience. "CP2" will not be counterbalanced by any legally binding commitments on the part of developing countries (even wealthy ones). Targets are unlikely to be consistent with climate science. Further, CP2 has been abandoned by most of the Umbrella Group including New Zealand, Canada, Russia and Japan. The EU and Australia, who recently agreed to jump into a common emissions trading bed together, will be blazing a lonely trail down the aisle.

Market mechanisms

We anticipate that little of what comes out of Doha will lift the fog of policy uncertainty that currently ensnares the EU and other global emissions trading scheme(s). Most CDM projects not registered by the end of this year face an uncertain and less than optimistic future. Perhaps a glimmer of hope will be offered by discussions of new market mechanisms and the private sector facility of the GCF, which may eventually help to unlock some of the much needed private investment into climate change mitigation on a larger and more scalable basis.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.