The first Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP 1) took place from 28 November to 10 December 2005 in Montreal, in conjunction with the eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 11). This meeting signifies a successful start into a new era of international climate policy: The Kyoto Protocol, which in the past had been sometimes declared as being dead, has become operational.
The challenges of the meeting were framed along the "Three Is", Implementation, Improvement and Innovation. The first challenge (Implementation) entailed in particular the adoption of the Marrakesh Accords, the agreements reached at COP 7 in Marrakesh that set out the detailed rules for making the Kyoto Protocol operational. The second challenge (Improvement) referred to improving the work of the Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol in the near future. The third and most important challenge (Innovation) referred to the further evolution of the regime.
This article by Bettina Wittneben, Wolfgang Sterk, Hermann E. Ott und Bernd Brouns provides an account of the main developments in Montreal along the lines of the "Three Is". The paper concludes with an assessment and outlook on international climate policy.
After two weeks of negotiations, climate diplomats completed the implementation of the Protocol, refined some of its instruments for implementation and agreed on processes for moving forward beyond the first Kyoto commitment period. The report by the Wuppertal Institute provides an overview and assessment of the agreements reached in Montreal.
Grave concerns with the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) have increasingly surfaced in the international climate policy arena. The sectoral approaches described in this paper may be a way to address some of the shortcomings of this Kyoto mechanism. The paper outlines the criticisms that have been raised against the CDM as well as the conflicting interpretations of a sectoral approach and examines in how far it might resolve the mechanism’s perceived shortcomings. Furthermore, it outlines issues that need to be resolved when implementing a sectoral approach: distributing costs and benefits, defining the sector and its baseline, ensuring additionality and tackling procedural issues. A sectoral approach can enable countries to guide their structural development but it also opens up a gap between public and private investment that needs to be addressed before conflicts arise. Sectoral CDM activities may be able to lower transaction costs for projects that otherwise cannot compete in the CDM market and might even pave the way to sectoral greenhouse gas limitation targets in developing countries by establishing the necessary infrastructure for data collection. However, a sectoral CDM cannot be mistaken for a panacea. Some of the mechanism's problems remain, which highlights the need to establish additional instruments to support Southern countries in furthering sustainable development and embarking on a low-emission trajectory.
The United Nations climate change conference in Nairobi came at the end of a year where public awareness of climate change had reached unprecedented heights. Nonetheless, the conference proceeded with its usual diplomatic ritual, apparently unaffected by time pressure. While it did see some progress on important issues for developing countries such as the Adaptation Fund, the Nairobi Work Programme on Impacts, Vulnerability, and Adaptation to Climate Change, and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), on questions regarding the future of the regime it proved to be at best a confidence-building session that served to hear further views. More serious work on the future of the regime must therefore be expected of the next Conferences of the Parties.
This article by Wolfgang Sterk, Hermann E. Ott, Rie Watanabe and Bettina Wittneben summarises the results of the conference.
The international climate negotiations have seen endless struggles between countries from South and North for almost 17 years, ever since the initiation of negotiations by the International Negotiation Committee (INC) for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The 13th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC and the 3rd meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP 13 / CMP 3) held in Bali in December 2007 (the Bali conference) could mark the beginning of a rapprochement. Parties agreed on initiating a new "Ad-hoc working group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention" (AWG-LCA) that aims to negotiate a post-2012 agreement with participation of all parties, including the US and developing countries, by the end of 2009 at COP 15 / CMP 5 in Copenhagen. This article examines the outcomes of the Bali conference, focussing on the negotiations regarding post-2012, flexible mechanisms, financial mechanisms, technology transfer and deforestation. Finally, the article concludes that the Bali Conference saw a significant shift in the battle lines, a rearrangement of positions and alliances that might well announce a decisive new era in global climate policy and provides a real chance to agree on an effective and workable post-2012 agreement in Copenhagen.
What is the significance of the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali? The formal outcomes, especially the "Bali Action Plan", are described and commented on, along with the challenges for negotiating a post-2012 agreement in Copenhagen during 2008 and 2009. The article concludes that the outcome of the Bali meeting is insufficient when compared to the nature of the challenge posed by climate change. However, it can nevertheless be considered a success in terms of "Realpolitik" in paving the way for the negotiations ahead, because some real changes have been discerned in the political landscape. The challenges for the road towards Copenhagen are manifold: the sheer volume and complexity of the issues and the far-reaching nature of decisions such as differentiation between non-Annex I countries pose significant challenges in themselves, while the dependency on the electoral process in the USA introduces a high element of risk into the whole process. The emergence of social justice as an issue turns climate policy into an endeavour to improve the world at large - thereby adding to the complexity. And, finally, the biggest challenge is the recognition that the climate problem requires a global solution, that Annex I and non-Annex I countries are mutually dependent on each other and that only cooperation regarding technology in combination with significant financial support will provide the chance to successfully tackle climate change.
While the number of projects under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is expanding rapidly, there currently are relatively few transport projects in the global CDM portfolio. This article examines existing CDM transport projects and explores whether sectoral approaches to the CDM may provide a better framework for transport than the current project‐based CDM. We ask: Would a sectoral approach to the CDM promote the structural change and integrated policymaking needed to achieve sustainable transport policy, making it hence more desirable than the framework of the current project‐based CDM? We conclude that it is possible to design sectoral transport activities within clear project boundaries that fit into a framework of a programmatic or policy‐based CDM. Although we are able to ascertain that transport policy research yields several modelling tools to address the methodological requirements of the CDM, it becomes apparent that sectoral approaches will accentuate transport projects' problems regarding high complexity and related uncertainties. The CDM may need new rules to manage these risks. Nonetheless, sectoral approaches allow the scaling up of activities to a level that affects long‐term structural change.
More and more countries are incorporating the instrument of emissions trading into their national climate policies. This emerging mosaic of emissions trading schemes (ETS) raises the question of whether they should be linked with each other. From an economic point of view, linking of domestic schemes is supposed to increase the economic efficiency of carbon markets. In addition, linking is also expected by some to yield substantial political benefits in terms of the evolution of the UNFCCC/Kyoto regime. However, these optimistic prospects are based on a best-case scenario where all major countries establish environmentally effective emissions trading systems and then link them with each other. Real-life politics might develop rather differently. This paper therefore examines to what extent the current status of emissions trading in industrialised countries provides a basis for reinforcing and moving forward the international climate regime through linking domestic ETS. After comparing emerging emissions trading schemes from an institutional perspective, it emerges that not only emissions trading is at a very early stage in most countries, in addition the emerging systems are probably going to be designed very differently from the EU ETS. While for some design features such as the coverage design differences do not matter, there are some areas where the plans in many non-EU countries look crucially different from the EU system. The outlook for a linked international ETS is therefore currently still very uncertain. Given this state of affairs, the EU should pro-actively engage with the non-EU countries to try to harmonise their developing national emissions trading schemes with the EU ETS, widely disseminate the lessons it has learned from the EU ETS, strongly make the case for environmental integrity and at the same time make clear that systems that want to link to the EU ETS will need to meet certain quality criteria.