Beyond the Kyoto Firewall
The Durban Platform, the Russian Proposal
and Differentiation of Country Groups
Anna Korppoo
Moscow, 26 January 2012
Firewall: Common but
differentiated responsibilities
 Only Annex I (developed) countries required to
adopt legally binding quantifiable mitigation /
stabilization targets – Convention, KP, BAP
 G77+China defend right to develop / equity
fiercely: KP2 seen as a safeguard – developed
countries must take lead since they are already
wealthy + caused the problem
 Annex I want to change: world has changed, cannot
reduce emissions enough to stop climate change
without emerging economies
 Graduation towards Annex I group discussed in
2000s, relevant again after Durban
Durban Platform – road to
graduation?
 process / roadmap towards a new regime: ‘a
protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed
outcome with legal force under the Convention
applicable to all Parties’
 new Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform
(AWG-DP): finalize work by 2015 – into force 2020
 CBDR not explicitly mentioned – firewall down?
 Open questions:
– Political will? Coalition of the unwilling in Durban?
– CBDR in Convention – AWG-DP under Convention
– Yet another roadmap…
– Agenda of AWG-DP to be decided in 2012
The Russian Proposal
 Proposal to amend the Convention (article 4,
paragraph 2 f):
– Economic and technological development since 1992:
amendments to Annexes I and II should be reviewed on
periodic basis until the objective of the Convention (to
prevent dangerous atmospheric interference) has been
achieved
 Negotiation group in Durban:
– G77 and China opposed in principle and claimed to need
more time
– Annex I Parties supported
– Good discussion opening by Russia - continues
Trends since early 1990s…?
Emissions per capita 1990-2008: Annex I
vs. non-Annex I
24
2008
44,6
18,6
Saudi Arabia
12,6
15,5
Kazakhstan
19,1
13
Russia
19,8
11,5
Korea
7,2
10,9
Japan
9,6
9,3
10,2
9,2
9,5
9
11,3
8
9,5
18,2
7,1
6,9
China
3,2
5,4
Mexico
5,1
4,1
Brazil
4,6
2,1
India
1,3
1,3
Qatar
US
Singapore
Israel
EU (27)
South Africa
Ukraine
Source: IMF database
1990
37,8
Source: WRI CAIT database
What graduation?
Annex II
Annex I
NICs
Binding absolute
reduction target,
no financing
obligations
Binding absolute
reduction target,
financing
obligations
RIDCs
Other DCs
Absolute limitation
targets conditional to
financing
Absolute
reduction or
limitation targets,
some financing
Source: Various publications, especially Winkler et al. (2006)
LDCs
No quantified
commitments, optional
financed NAMAs
No quantified
commitments,
obligatory cofunded NAMAs
Indicators
 Who should mitigate and how much?
– Rather scientific comparison than political negotiation as a
basis of burden-sharing
 Criteria: responsibility, capability and potential to
mitigate?
– Cumulative emissions (historical responsibility)
– GDP PPP or HDI
– CO2/GDP
– various others
 Also suggested: OECD membership, carbon intense
exports, ecosystem services
Discussion
 What are the Russian ideas on burden-sharing /
graduation?
 Which indicators? Why?
 Are current structures applicable:
– registered NAMAs?
– Non-binding pledges under the Copenhagen agreement?
 How feasible is it politically that AWG-DP will
establish a system with meaningful participation by
all key players – graduation part of this?
Thank you!
Contact:
anna.korppoo@fni.no