The European Court of Justice has dismissed claims by the US that the proposed inclusion of international airlines in the EU carbon trading scheme is illegal.

The much anticipated, but largely expected, ruling means that all flights taking-off or landing at EU airports will be included in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) from January 1, 2012.

EU Commissioner for Climate Action said: “I am of course very satisfied to see that the Court clearly concluded that the EU Directive is fully compatible with international law. A number of American airlines decided to challenge our legislation in court and thus abide by the rule of law. So now we expect them to respect European law. We reaffirm our wish to engage constructively with everyone during the implementation of our legislation.”

US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said if the ruling went against the US, Washington would “be compelled to take appropriate action”.

It has been suggested that the US may set-up a retaliatory scheme and use the funding to compensate US airlines.

Trade body Airlines for America (A4A) has said that it could now pursue the case in the High Court in the UK.

“Today’s court decision further isolates the EU from the rest of the world and will keep in place a unilateral scheme that is counterproductive to concerted global action on aviation and climate change,” the group said in a statement.

“Today’s decision does not mark the end of this case and Airlines for America (A4A) is reviewing options to pursue in the English High Court. At the same time, the US government and dozens of others around the world are increasing pressure on the EU to come back to the table to consider a global sectoral approach. In the meantime, A4A members will comply under protest and will continue to operate safely and efficiently to Europe when the scheme takes effect.”

The EU announced in September that 85% of airlines allowances would be awarded for free in the first year of the scheme and 82% in 2013. It is estimated to raise between €2.4 and €3 billion. (RTCC)

If one wants to make a political link between Canada pulling out of Kyoto and also being the main producer of tar sands, he or she would not be wrong. Currently, Canada is viciously lobbying together with the oil industry to weaken the EU proposal on fuel quality and delete the value for tar sands.

Beyond closed-doors “comitology” meetings, there will be a debate in the EU’s the environment council about the fuel quality directive (FQD) and values for unconventional fuels, including tar sands. The issue is under the “Any other business” chapter.

Canada’s confirmation that it will withdraw from the Kyoto profile is regretful, according to UNFCCC Chief Christian Figueres.

Figueres also called on the country to act on its “moral obligations”.

“I regret that Canada has announced it will withdraw and am surprised over its timing,” said Figueres. “Whether or not Canada is a Party to the Kyoto Protocol, it has a legal obligation under the Convention to reduce its emissions, and a moral obligation to itself and future generations to lead in the global effort.”

“Industrialised countries whose emissions have risen significantly since 1990, as is the case for Canada, remain in a weaker position to call on developing countries to limit their emissions,” she said.

The country had pledged to reduce its Greenhouse Gas emissions by 6% compared to 1990 levels by 2012 and instead has seen them rise by 17 percent.

“For Canada, Kyoto is in the past,” said Peter Kent, Canada’s Environment Minister both on the rostrum in Durban on December 6 and in Toronto on Monday.

He denied that Canada was not doing its part for the climate and said that “Canada is carrying its weight, and proud to be doing its share”.

Kent has said that the Protocol is meaningless as it does not include major emitters such as the US and China.

An agreement in Durban to pursue negotiations for a legally binding deal that incorporates all nations will take force by 2020 at the earliest, leaving a gap of eight years without legal emission pledges. The terms for a second commitment period of Kyoto will be agreed upon at COP18 in Qatar.

Background

Canada has pulled out of the Kyoto protocol on climate change, one day after an update was agreed on, saying the accord won’t work.

The Canadian environment minister, Peter Kent, said Canada was invoking its legal right to withdraw. Kyoto did not represent the way forward for Canada or the world, he added.

Canada, Japan and Russia said last year in Cancun, Mexico that they would not accept new Kyoto commitments, but Canada is the only country to repudiate it altogether.

Speaking on the last day of the talks, the group said moves by some of the poorest and vulnerable nations had changed the landscape of the negotiations.

“Six months ago, no-one was talking about a future climate regime, about what should follow the Cancun and Copenhagen agreements,” said Connie Hedegaard EU Commissioner for Climate Action. “Today agreement is within reach… on a 2nd commitment period and a roadmap for negotiating a future regime that is global and legally binding.”

Talks continued until the last night and were anticipated to last until the early hours of Sunday morning. One of the key late developments was the partnership of the EU, the Least Developed Countries and the Alliance of Small Island States, which collectively stated their willingness to move toward a global deal by 2020.

Connie Hedegaard

“The rich/poor divide is over,” said Hedegaard in relation to the negotiations. “I note with great satisfaction that both South Africa and Brazil are moving their positions. That is half the BASIC, now we are waiting for the other half.

“It is interesting that some of the countries that have previously said ‘we must be in a box on our own because we are poor’. When those countries say ‘we think we should have an outcome where we all commit’, that is encouraging and that is what we are seeing in Durban. Of course that does not mean they should commit the same as the world’s richest countries,” added Hedegaard.

The UN climate talks in Durban have been hailed an ‘historic success’ after agreement was reached on Sunday.

COP17 looked in trouble just before 2am, after India and China protested at the lack of equity in proposals put forward by the European Union (EU).

But a dramatic 15-minute ‘huddle’ in the centre of the plenary hall resulted in a form of words all parties could agree on.

COP17 President Mashabane called the agreement: “truly historical”, adding “You were prepared to show the required political will to move this process forward. It is without any doubt in my mind that we have worked together to save tomorrow, today”.

The deal should mean that every country in the world is committed to reducing its carbon emissions, although the fine details are still unclear.

Parties have signed up to an EU-sponsored roadmap that will see a new variant of the Kyoto Protocol negotiated by 2015, and come into force by 2020. A second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which does not include the US, China or India, will be finalised at COP18, in Qatar.

Talks on this new, more-inclusive document, which must have “legal force”, will get underway in 2013.

The roadmap was further developed by the EU, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Least Developed Countries bloc (LDCs).

The Green Climate Fund has also been approved, although sources of funding are unclear, and states such as Bolivia appeared to reject the idea the private sector and carbon markets could be used to source finance.

The Durban talks were the longest in history, running almost 36 hours longer than the original cut-off point on Friday afternoon.

And at 0140 local time, COP17 looked close to collapse after an impassioned plea from India’s Jayanthi Natarajan, who accused the EU bloc of ignoring ‘equity’ in the text.

With the belief growing in the BASIC bloc that the EU timetable was overly legalistic and too tight, she directed her anger at COP17 President Mashabane, declaring “India will not be intimidated”.

Natarajan was backed by lead Chinese negotiator Xie Zhenhua, who delivered an angry rebuke to parties who he said had not fulfilled their current commitments.

“Look not what is said but what is done,” Zhenhua shouted, “We have been talking about this issue for the past 20 years. We are doing things you are not”.

But with support for a deal growing around the room, together with an intervention from US negotiator Todd Stern, Mashabane decided to call an impromtu ‘huddle’ for the main parties to come to a solution.

On agreement of the roadmap, the rest of the package was agreed with bewildering speed, Mashabane banging the gavel at regular intervals to speed the meeting along.

A framework for the Green Climate Fund – which could generate finances of $100 Billion a year by 2020 for developing countries – was adopted, although a venue for its Headquarters is as yet unclear.

There also appears to have been progress on REDD+ and deforestation measures.

Speaking to RTCC in the Plenary Hall, the UK’s lead climate diplomat John Ashton said the talks had been a success, adding the roadmap and accompanying measures “represented closure” after Copenhagen.

Chris Huhne, UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, warned there was still work to do but was enthusiatic about the deal. “There are still many details to be hammered out, but we now need to start negotiating the new legal agreement as soon as possible and there are still many details to be hammered out,” he said.

Adrian Macey, Chair of AWG-KP, the track of the talks dealing with Kyoto said: “We’ve got a package with clarity on the Kyoto Protocol, and importantly we also have clarity on the long term too, and it’s quite momentus I think looking at this longer term agreement. Better than people expected.”

Norway’s Climate Change Minister Erik Solheim told RTCC they were “very, very pleased, it’s in the upper range of what we hoped for. We’re pleased both with the substantive outcome and also the agreement on this process.

“For us this is a great outcome. The key aspect is that it is crucial, when you have a Kyoto Protocol with limited scope…[it's] crucial we get a legally binding framework for all major emitters and that’s the core here. It’s also important the deadline for the negotiation process is not too far into the future. So it’s the ambition level and also the urgency. We have somethig to take climate action forward and we now have an ambitious pathway to go forward,” said Solheim.

“It’s been a long two weeks and also the months leading up. Very tough for all parties,” he added.

NGOs were less pleased, with Greenpeace branding the deal “grim news”.

“Blockers lead by the US have succeeded in inserting a vital get-out clause that could easily prevent the next big climate deal being legally binding,” said Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director.

“If that loophole is exploited it could be a disaster. And the deal is due to be implemented ‘from 2020′ leaving almost no room for increasing the depth of carbon cuts in this decade when scientists say we need emissions to peak.”

RTCC

As COP17 moves into its second week, heads of states and ministers join their delegations and the talks intensify, is the voice of women being represented sufficiently in the process?

Making up over 50% of the population – and 60% in some of the world’s poorest countries – the effects of climate change are more acutely felt by women.

With women also being at the heart of many households in the most climate vulnerable areas – both as care giver and as decision maker – there is a huge potential for them to act as agents of change.

Ahead of COP17 women’s day, where the Climate Change Studio will be joined by Christiana Figueres, head of the UNFCCC, Winnie Byanyima, Director UNDP Gender Team and Cecilia Njenga, from the UNEP, to name a few, we took at look at why gender and climate change is so important.

Climate Vulnerability

While in most communities both the men and women, particularly in the developing world, are either already experiencing or will experience climate change vulnerabilities, research has shown that this impact is being felt worse amongst women.

Women farmers account for around 45-80% of all food production. As droughts, flooding and other natural changes put their agricultural livelihoods at risk – both limiting the food for the household and for selling – work becomes much harder and research by the UN found that it is the women and the girls who experience the most noticeable health decline.

In most communities it is also the women who predominately collect the fuel for the home for example firewood and agricultural crops, and water. With women travelling further distances to find these sources of energy, they have less time for domestic tasks, less time to earn money and are also more at risk of injury or sexual harassment.

Finally with many climate impacts – flooding and drought – disease and illness spreads and with the traditional role of women as mother and caregiver, this puts even more stress of their daily lives.

When Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and founder of the Mary Robinson Foundation – Climate Justice spoke at the Climate Change Studio last week, she said: “It is an issue that is fundamental to climate justice, to the idea of putting a human face on climate, the importance of both food and nutrition security and women for agents for change who are going to bring about the changes on the ground.

“They will be the ones who will have to adapt to the climate shocks that we have so they need to be empowered, they need to be valued and they need to be at the table at decision making. They are not there enough.”

Read more on RTCC.

Australia and Japan told delegates in Durban that they support a new legally binding deal, during an edgy meeting at the UN climate change talks yesterday evening. “The role of the forest is not for carbon stocks” said the head of the Bolivian delegation, as REDD+ talk’s progress at COP17.

The two countries, which have both rejected a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol after it expires next year, are willing to look at a new agreement encompassing “major economies”. Australia said a deal must set obligations for a broad set of parties.

They were joined in their calls by the Less Developed Countries (LDCs) and the EU during talks, which one delegate inside the room described to RTCC as “calm but tense”.

Colombia and the Marshall Islands demanded that work on the text of a deal should begin immediately. China sought to limit the conversation to the mere possibility of a deal, rather than its actual substance.

Grenada, representing the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) said it preferred a second commitment period of Kyoto and accused some nations of having “a 2012 vision rather than a 2020 vision”. Venezuela went one step further saying that the failure to produce a second commitment period would represent “a wrongful act”.

There were also calls for a voluntary set of pledges, as suggested ahead of the Durban conference. These were dismissed by the representative of Bolivia as “untrustworthy”.

Bolivia: No to REDD+!

While REDD+ talks pick up speed at the negotiations in Durban, some delegations have suggested bringing forward issues that were intended for consideration at COP18, the Bolivian delegation spoke out in opposition of the scheme in its first press conference of the talks.

Rene Orellana, head of the Bolivian delegation said: “As people who live in the forest, we are not carbon stocks. We disagree with REDD because we oppose the commoditisation of the forest.”

“It’s a complex and dangerous situation to see forests as carbon stocks. The forest provides a role as food security, a water source and biodiversity for our indigenous population. REDD reduces the function of the forest to just one, carbon stocks.”

Currently the discussions around REDD+ are focussing on three main barriers to the implementation and scaling up of the scheme; how to monitor the carbon stored and saved in trees, how to safeguard populations in forest areas and questions remaining around the financial side – including how much finance will be available and where it will come from (i.e. market mechanisms, public finance etc).

Bolivia – a country which has 50% forest coverage – aims at putting forward a different proposal based on finding different sources of finance other than carbon credits, the recognition of multiple forest functions and methodologies for integrated forest management.

However, the Bolivian delegation said that no attention was being paid to the proposals they had put on the table.

Source: RTCC

The EU has declared that it will enter into a second commitment period of the Kyoto agreement, but only if the world’s other nations set down the path toward their own legally binding emission cuts.

Arthur Runge-Metzger, chief negotiator for EU

Speaking at the first EU press briefing in Durban on the eve of the UN climate change talks, the bloc said a new phase of Kyoto commitments would depend on certain conditions being met by developing countries not included in the protocol.

“We need to see other countries agree to a roadmap whereby a timetable of negotiations for a legally binding deal is drawn-up,” said Tomasz Chruszczow, head of the Polish delegation in Durban. Poland currently holds the EU Presidency. “A deal must be agreed by 2015 and it needs to come into force by 2020.

“We need a roadmap that brings 100% of global emissions under one umbrella. The legal framework can be the same for all nations. The commitments and the deadlines can be different,” he said.

In addition to the pledges from other nations, Chruszczow also called for new market based mechanisms and robust carbon accounting procedures before the EU would commit to a second period of Kyoto.

The group also clarified its position in other areas of the talks including its long-rumoured deepening of emission cuts to 30%.

“I don’t even think the 30% question will be asked here in Durban,” said Artur Runge-Metzger, lead negotiator for the EU. “Nobody else is talking about increasing their level of ambition.

“Kyoto is not dead. It will continue to run for those countries that have ratified it, even those that have said they will not sign-up for a second designated commitment period. The framework remains. It is a very useful legal instrument and it has shown it can work. It needs some improvement and hopefully we can make those decisions here. Voluntary action is not enough,” said Runge-Metzger.

“Looking for a new deal by 2020 at the latest is not the same thing as postponing Kyoto, we will continue to press ahead for a second period of commitment under the Kyoto agreement but a new deal should come as soon as possible,” added Runge-Metzger. “We are not ditching our commitments. Others are. The Bali roadmap included provisions for countries to make moves toward binding agreements. That was supposed to happen in Copenhagen but we are still waiting.”

The EU represents 11% of global emissions and has stated its reluctance to persist with Kyoto unless developing nations begin their own works towards binding deals.

Eastern Europe, a coal burner

Environment ministers from six eastern EU member states have called for caution and further research before the negotiating block increases its carbon emission ambitions.

The statement comes just days after Artur Runge-Metzger, director of the international and climate strategy directorate at the EU Commission, said a 30 per cent emission reduction was very much still on the table. The current commitment is 20 per cent by 2020.

Ministers from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Romania signed a declaration after the meeting in the Prague. The statement highlighted “the importance for working on a roadmap towards the transition to a low-carbon economy and stressed that any future steps need to be carefully assessed from the angle of all the potential costs, benefits and impacts on the level of individual member states”.

A statement from the Czech Ministry of the Environment called for further EU reductions to be accompanied by similar commitments for China, the US and other significant emitters.

Several of the countries that signed the declaration, particularly Poland, are heavily dependant on coal and wary of being pulled into EU commitments that would prove costly.

Poland and the Czech Republic use coal for 92 per cent and 60 per cent respectively of their electricity generation.

Source: RTCC

The EU is “pleasantly surprised” by China’s progress on Climate Change, chief negotiator Arthur Runge-Metzger said.
Source: RTCC

Arthur Runge-Metzger, chief negotiator for EU

While Beijing has made strides Runge-Metzger said the US was stuck in a difficult political position domestically that has thwarted its own headway in the climate negotiations.

“We are very much looking forward to seeing what other countries are doing about climate change and we were pleasantly surprised by China,” said Runge-Metzger. “It has already inserted its Cancun pledge in to its next five year plan. That is a very important step but there are many other countries that will have to follow suit. In some countries, the pledge is made, but the implementation is shaky.”

When asked if the United States had become an obstructive force in the process Runge-Metzger refused to criticise them too heavily.

“I think the United States is in a very difficult situation. The Obama administration is certainly committed to move on climate change but the situation in Congress and the Senate does not allow any movement forward and that is a huge problem because there are many other countries that can just hide behind that position,” said Runge-Metzger.

“Applying pressure to the US is something that we need to do collectively. It also important that those who hide behind the United States come out and are very clear out about being committed and showing sufficient political will to take this discussion forward towards real implementation.”

The US and Japan joined a chorus of objections to the $100bn GCF – Green Climate Fund’s proposed design during a heated session in Durban.

Issues over the use of private sector money and controversial fundraising mechanisms such as the financial transaction tax dominated discussions.

The US and Japan has stated categorically that they do not want to hold any discussions over a single source of funding, such as the so-called Robin Hood tax on banking transactions. Instead they insist that each individual country should be allowed to raise its share of the GCF. This national approach would also appear to rule out a system of international levies on shipping or aviation progressing in Durban.

Meanwhile a diverse range of parties including Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Egypt objected to the use of private sector money for the fund, which it is hoped will be worth $100bn per year by 2020. The current so-called fast start finance is worth $10 billion a year till 2012.

Less developed nations are also concerned that the use of private sector finance could see control and outcomes of projects farmed out to the corporations sponsoring them, rather than being in the hands of the governments on the ground.

“There’s a huge gap to close,” said Ilana Solomon, senior policy analyst with ActionAid USA. “The big question is whether discussions will continue productively or unravel.

“The good news is that despite their differences, all parties want to see progress,” said Solomon.

This statement was backed up by US negotiator Jonathan Pershing who has described the GCF as potentially “a major global institution for climate finance…if it is designed properly”.

The fate of the GCF will now be decided behind closed doors, although COP17 President Maite Mashabane sought to assure observers that this process would remain inclusive and transparent.

Source: RTCC online