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.
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.
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.
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.
The current emissions trading debates in the EU and the USA were examined and the prospects for creating a transatlantic carbon market were analysed. A future US Emissions Trading Scheme (US ETS) may be designed very differently from the EU ETS, raising questions of compatibility. Crucial differences relate to the stringency of targets, the recognition of offsets, and price control mechanisms. These differences flow directly from the different policy and economic perspectives on emissions trading and climate policy in the USA and the EU. The two sides should therefore seek a way forward that reconciles potentially different climate policies. For example, the USA and the EU should consider an effort to harmonize carbon prices, and US legislation could phase out cost-containment mechanisms after some time period. Finally, both US and EU policies should have mechanisms that allow periodic recalibration, which would allow each to adjust to new technology, react to developing-country climate policies, and learn from each other. In the longer term, this would allow both sides to strive for greater policy convergence, either through linked trading systems, harmonized prices, or a transition from harmonized prices to linkage.
The barriers to linking greenhouse gas cap-and-trade schemes are assessed, based on an analysis of existing and emerging trading schemes, including those in the USA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the EU. The feasibility of different forms of linking and the time frames for their implementation are examined. In particular, the barriers to direct bilateral linking are considered. It was found that only a few direct bilateral links will be viable in the short term, due to the divergent policy priorities of different nations and regions, reflected in critical design features, such as costcontainment measures. However, in the short term, cap-and-trade markets will very likely be indirectly linked via unilateral links to the CDM or new crediting mechanisms, which may be adopted within a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. In order to ensure a harmonization of critical design elements in the mid to long term, early institutional cooperation may become necessary. Necessary policy steps and the appropriate institutional framework for such harmonization and, overtime, further integration of trading schemes are briefly delineated.
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.