MD ZIAUL HAQUE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS)
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS
29 August, 2013
Kyoto Protocol (Phase I)
 The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 by the 3rd
Conference of the Parties (COP3), but entered into force
only in 2005.
 The Protocol moves beyond the UNFCCC by establishing
legally-binding emission reduction and limitation
commitments for all Annex I Parties to the Convention
that are also Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (Article 3).
 The first set of quantified emission limitation and
reduction objectives ("QELROS") agreed for Annex I
Parties are set out in Annex B to the Protocol and run
for a 5-year period, from 2008 through 2012. This is
called First Commitment Period.
Contd.
 Annex I Parties shall individually or jointly reduce their
overall emissions of GHGs listed in Annex A (Six GHGs)
in accordance with their assigned amount inscribed in
Annex B by at least 5% below 1990 levels in the 1st
Commitment Period (Article 3.1).
 Each Annex I Party shall, by 2005, have made
demonstrable progress in achieving its commitments
under this protocol (Article 3.2).
 Commitments for subsequent periods for Annex I
Parties shall be established in amendments to Annex B
to this Protocol in accordance with the provisions of
Article 21.7 (Article 3.9).
Contd.
 If the emissions of an Annex I Party in a commitment
period are less than its assigned amount under this
Article, this difference shall, on request of that Party, be
added to the assigned amount for that party for
subsequent commitment periods (Article 3.13).
 For the purpose of meeting its commitments under
Article 3, any Annex I Party may transfer to, or acquire
from, any other such Party emission reduction units
resulting from projects aimed at reducing emissions by
sources or enhancing removals by sinks of GHGs in any
sector of the economy (Article 6).
Contd.
 Under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): a)
Non-Annex I Parties will benefit from project activities
resulting in Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), and
b) Annex I Parties may use the CERs accruing from such
project activities to contribute to compliance with part
of their QELRC under Article 3 as determined by the
Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the
Parties to this Protocol, CMP (Article 12).
 The CMP shall ensure that a share of the proceeds from
certified project activities is used to cover administrative
expenses as well as to assist developing country Parties
to meet the costs of adaptation (Adaptation Fund)
(Article 12).
Kyoto Protocol (Phase II)
 Under Article 3.9 of the Protocol, Parties agreed to begin
negotiations on commitments for a second commitment
period at least 7 years before the end of the first
commitment period (i.e., in 2005).
 In December 2005, the Parties adopted decision
1/CMP.1, which established the Ad Hoc Working Group
on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties (AWG-KP).
By this decision, the Parties "Agree[d] that the group
shall aim to complete its work and have its results
adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the
meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) as
early as possible and in time to ensure that there is no
gap between the first and second commitment periods".
Contd.
 Since 2005, some Annex I Parties have expressed
hesitation in taking a second set of commitments under
the Kyoto Protocol in the absence of binding
commitments by the United States and major developing
country Parties.
 These Annex I Parties have expressed their preference for
a single new agreement for the post-2012 period under
the Convention. A few of these Parties have stated that
they will not present second commitment period (CP2)
QELROs.
Contd.
 Nevertheless, at CMP 7 in 2011 at Durban, as a result of
strong pressure from developing countries, the Parties to
the Kyoto Protocol confirmed by decision 1/CMP.7 that
there would be a CP2 under the Kyoto Protocol. The
Parties agreed that the "second commitment period under
the Kyoto Protocol shall begin on 1 January 2013 and end
either on 31 December 2017 or 31 December 2020, to be
decided by the AWG-KP at its seventeenth session".
 Finally, the amendments to the Kyoto Protocol for 2nd
commitment period pursuant to its Article 3.9 was adopted
by CMP8 in 2012 at Doha.
 But following USA, Canada walked out from the KP, and
Japan, Russia and New Zealand did not join KP-2
Major Amendments to the KP
 The second commitment period begins on 1 January
2013 and will end on 31 December 2020 subject to
ratification by the Parties concerned.
 Amendments of Annex B to the Protocol by replacing
the table in Annex B with new table where quantified
emission limitation or reduction commitment s of each
Annex I countries that are Parties to KP are inscribed in
percentage of base year or period.
 One new GHG-Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) is included in
Annex A.
 Amendments pursuant to Article 3.9 and other
consequential amendments .
Contd.
 New Article 3.1 bis: Parties included in Annex I shall,
individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate
anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of
the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed
their assigned amounts, calculated pursuant to their
quantified emission limitation and reduction
commitments inscribed in the third column of the table
contained in Annex B and in accordance with the
provisions of this Article, with a view to reducing their
overall emissions of such gases by at least 18 per cent
below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2013 to
2020.
Contd.
 New Article 3.1 ter: A Party included in Annex B may
propose an adjustment to decrease the percentage
inscribed in the third column of Annex B of its quantified
emission limitation and reduction commitment inscribed
in the third column of the table contained in Annex B. A
proposal for such an adjustment shall be communicated
to the Parties by the secretariat at least three months
before the meeting of the Conference of the Parties
serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol at
which it is proposed for adoption.
 Article 3.8 bis: Any Party included in Annex I may use
1995 or 2000 as its base year for nitrogen trifluoride for
the purposes of the calculation referred to in paragraph 7
bis above.
Major decisions adopted by CMP8
 Para 6: Decides also that Parties that do not provisionally
apply the amendment under paragraph 5, will implement
their commitments and other responsibilities in relation
to the second commitment period, in a manner
consistent with their national legislation or domestic
processes, as of 1 January 2013 and pending the entry
into force of the amendment in accordance with Articles
20 and 21 of the Kyoto Protocol.
Contd.
 Para 7: Decides that each Party included in Annex I will
revisit its quantified emission limitation and reduction
commitment for the second commitment period at the
latest by 2014. In order to increase the ambition of its
commitment, such Party may decrease the percentage
inscribed in the third column of Annex B of its quantified
emission limitation and reduction commitment, in line
with an aggregate reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
not controlled by the Montreal Protocol by Parties
included in Annex I of at least 25 to 40 per cent below
1990 levels by 2020.
Contd.
 Para 15: Decides, with respect to joint implementation
under Article 6 and emissions trading under Article 17 of
the Kyoto Protocol, that:
(a) As of 1 January 2013, only a Party with a commitment
inscribed in the third column of Annex B as contained in
annex I to this decision whose eligibility has been
established in accordance with the provisions of
paragraph 3 of the annex to decision 11/CMP.1 in the first
commitment period, shall be eligible to transfer and
acquire CERs and AAUs, ERUs and RMUs valid for the
second commitment period under Article 17 of the Kyoto
Protocol, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3(b) of
the annex to decision 11/CMP.1;
Contd.
 Para 21: Decides also that for the second commitment
period, the Adaptation Fund shall be further augmented
through a 2 per cent share of the proceeds levied on the
first international transfers of AAUs and the issuance of
ERUs for Article 6 projects immediately upon the
conversion to ERUs of AAUs or RMUs previously held by
Parties;
 Para 22: Reaffirms that in accordance with decision
17/CP.7, clean development mechanism project activities
in least developed country Parties shall continue to be
exempt from the share of proceeds to assist with the
costs of adaptation;
Contd.
 Para 24: Decides also that where the emissions of a Party
referred to in paragraph 23 above in a commitment
period are less than its assigned amount under Article 3,
the difference shall, on request of that Party, be carried
over to the subsequent commitment period, as follows:
(a) Any ERUs or CERs held in that Party’s national registry
that have not been retired for that commitment period
or cancelled may be carried over to the subsequent
commitment period, up to a maximum for each unit type
of 2.5 per cent of the assigned amount calculated
pursuant to Article 3, paragraphs 7, and 8;
2015 Legally Binding Agreement
 The COP17, by decision 1/CP.17, launched a process to
develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an
agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention
applicable to all Parties through the Ad Hoc Working
Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action
(ADP) established by the same decision. The COP17 also
decided to launch a work plan on enhancing mitigation
ambition to identify and explore options for a range of
actions that can close the ambition gap, with a view to
ensuring the highest possible mitigation efforts by all
Parties (Pre-2020 mitigation ambition).
Contd.
 Decision 1/CP.17 states that the work of the ADP on
the 2015 LBA shall include, inter alia, mitigation,
adaptation, finance, technology development and
transfer, transparency of action and support, and
capacity-building (Para 5). Decision 1/CP.17 further adds
that the process shall raise the level of ambition and be
informed by, inter alia, the IPCC AR5 and the 2013-15
Review (Para 6).
Contd.
 The COP17 further decided that the ADP should start its
work as a matter of urgency in the first half of 2012 and
should complete its work as early as possible but no
later than 2015 in order for the COP to adopt this
protocol, legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal
force at its twenty-first session (COP21) and for it to
come into effect and be implemented from 2020.
 The COP18 also decided that the ADP will consider
elements for a draft negotiating text no later than at its
session to be held in conjunction with the COP20, with a
view to making available a negotiating text before May
2015.
Contd.
 The agenda adopted by the ADP was to initiate the
discussions under two work-streams: one on matters
related to paragraphs 2 to 6 of decision 1/CP.17 (2015
Agreement) and one on matters related to paragraphs
7 and 8 of the same decision 1/CP.17 (Pre 2020
Mitigation Ambition).
Major points being discussed under ADP
negotiations (Bangladesh’s view)
 It would be a rules-based Protocol under the Convention
(Paris Protocol)
 Work in the ADP on the 2015 LBA needs to continue
considering mitigation, adaptation, transparency and
means of implementation in an integrated way in order to
identify the specific functional elements that will go into
the 2015 LBA and accompanying package
 The outcome of the ADP must be in line with this ultimate
objective and this can only be achieved through a
collective and equitable sharing of efforts and universal
participation
 The 2015 Agreement must take into account the specific
circumstances of country Parties with reference to e.g. level of
development, access to international markets, access to natural
resources, climate vulnerability, etc.
 A special consideration must be given to the highly vulnerable
countries
 Developed countries must take the lead, certainly on mitigation
but also in respect of other issues, and developing countries
should contribute to the fullest extent possible on the basis of
CBDR and RC
 The level and extent of contributions can be determined
nationally with the provisions of international oversight
 Parties may select the specific types of commitments
appropriate to their national circumstances under a framework
of international consultations, which imply a combination of
both bottom-up and top-down steps
Contd.
 An enhanced MRV framework should be put in place
under a rules- based system
 Taking on responsibilities under an equity-based
spectrum of commitments may inform the new
Agreement as a core consideration
 It is important to add values to the ADP process from the
existing frameworks, mechanisms, institutions and
processes under both the Convention and the Kyoto
Protocol
 It is critically important that the post-2020 regime must
address both mitigation and adaptation in a balanced
manner
Contd.
 In order to capture the changing circumstances in a
predictable manner, an effective and robust review
mechanism has to be put in place under the new Legally
Binding Agreement
 It should provide clear assurance on the provisions of
means of implementation in terms of transparent
actions in relation to financial, technological and
capacity enhancement support
 MRV of support has to be dealt with under an effective
review mechanism
 The goal of adaptation has to be realized under an
accompanying implementation package
Pre-2020 Mitigation Ambition
 Action to close the pre 2020 mitigation gap in order to
achieve below 2 degree global goal.
 Importance of building the appropriate implementation
conditions to allow greater pre-2020 ambition.
 All countries must contribute to raising ambition with
required support, but developed countries must take the
lead.
 Low-hanging mitigation potential should be emphasized,
as well as the importance of supplementary initiatives
outside the UNFCCC without prejudice to the Convention
process.
Contd.
 All developed countries must provide their fair share of
climate finance for the specific mitigation actions
initiated; that along with public finance there is a need
to leverage more investments from the private sector.
 We should look into how work in UNFCCC bodies such as
the GCF and the Technology Mechanism can link with
international initiatives on mitigation.
 Ministerial engagement on pre-2020 ambition would be
essential at COP 19 and at the upcoming summit called
by the UN Secretary General.
Thank You All