Agriculture and forestry will part-take EU’s climate policies and emission reduction process, according to a proposal issued by the Directorate General for Climate Action.

The proposed new rules will  be submitted to the European Parliament and the European Council, together with an obligation for member states to adopt action plans for greener forestry, soil and agriculture.

A proposal for national emission reduction targets for these sectors is due to be issued later this year.

Forestry and agriculture are the last two major sectors without common European rules, nor specific climate policies.

Efforts to mitigate rural carbon dioxide emissions have only been partly recognized by the EU, due to a lack of common accounting rules and problems associated with robust carbon data collection from forests and soils.

“The proposal will also contribute to protect biodiversity and water resources, support rural development and have a more climate-friendly agriculture,” stated the EU climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard.

On Poland’s Rebel Stance

”Poland’s no to the European Commission low-carbon Roadmap is unfortunate, but it will not stop Europe from moving on with its transition to a low-carbon economy,” added Hedegaard.

“The bad news was that Poland blocked Council conclusions for the second time. The good and encouraging news is that Poland was the only country to block. The Presidency and the other 26 member states explicitly asked the Commission to move on, and that is what we will do.

The day before the Council the Polish minister signed off an op-ed saying that EU should only have the 2050 reduction objective. How to achieve it should be up to members states themselves as a matter of “subsidiarity”.

Let’s imagine that we said the same about the economic crisis, that the EU defined the economic target for 2050 but how to reach it and whether anything happened in the next 38 years would be an exclusive matter for individual member states. Everyone can see that this wouldn’t work. This is also true when it comes to our climate policies,” she added.

The EU can’t work like this. The EU is a democratic community where negotiations are about give and take to get a good result for all. We can’t move forward if the most reluctant one dictates the pace to the rest.

The Commission’s job is to take care of the common European interest. As late as last week all EU Heads of States and Government urged us to move forward on the low-carbon transition. This is what we will do. There are already a number of proposals from the Commission paving the way, e.g. the energy efficiency directive that the European Council wants to be adopted already in June and the Commission’s budget proposal with an ambitious climate mainstreaming.

Now the Commission will work on further measures needed to reach the cost-efficient milestones that will lead us to a low-carbon future”.

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)

Against a background of record greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, more frequent and intense extreme weather events, but also growing momentum for action to fight climate change, the UN Climate Change Conference in Durban (28 November to 9 December) kicked off today.

At the start of the conference, South African President Jacob Zuma pointed to the climate impacts in Africa as a reason for all governments to take action.

“We have experienced unusual and severe flooding in coastal areas in recent times, impacting on people directly as they lose their homes, jobs and livelihoods. Given the urgency, governments need to strive to find solutions here in Durban. Change and solutions are always possible, and Durban must take us many steps forward towards a solution that saves tomorrow today,” he said.

The newly elected President of the conference, South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, stressed that Durban would be a decisive moment for the future of the multilateral rules-based regime. “In Durban, we need to show the world that we are ready to tackle and solve our very real problems in a practical manner,” she said.

According to the UN’s top climate change official, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres, governments can take two major, decisive steps in Durban. The first step relates to completing the most comprehensive package ever to help developing countries adapt to climate change and to limit the growth of their greenhouse gas emissions, which was decided at the UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun last year.

“The Technology Mechanism and the Adaptation Committee agreed in Cancun can be completed here in Durban so that they can begin benefitting people in 2012,” Ms. Figueres said. “And in Durban, the first phase of the design of the Green Climate Fund can be approved, as a major step on the road towards better supported climate action,” she stated.

Governments can also ramp up funding towards the 100 billion USD of long-term climate finance they have already agreed to provide by 2020 and need to work out the “what” and the “how” for a review agreed in Cancun that will assess the adequacy of a below 2 degrees Celsius temperature limit, including in relation to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The second decisive step that can be made in Durban relates to how governments will work together to achieve their common goal of limiting the global temperature rise to a level which will prevent the worst ravages of climate change.

“This means, as a central task for Durban, answering the very important question of the future of the Kyoto Protocol. At the same time, governments will need to agree on how they want to pursue a broader framework to reduce greenhouse gases under the Climate Change Convention,” Ms. Figueres said.

Ms. Figueres drew attention to the fact that action on climate change is presently building nationally, regionally and at all levels of society, and that this positive momentum can feed into the UN climate change process.
“These negations are about securing a better future and improving the quality of life of people. The momentum for change is building, not least in developing countries. More can be achieved if governments and the private sector work in partnerships,” she said.

Together with the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and South African President Jacob Zuma, the UN Climate Change secretariat will in Durban launch a “Momentum for Change” initiative on 6 December designed to demonstrate how the public and private sectors are already working together to fight climate change.

In the wake of the Conference of the Parties in Durban, South Africa, in December this year, UNFCCC has revealed the information document and the Fast-start Finance submissions from developed countries are now available on the newly-launched Fast-start Finance module of the Finance Portal for Climate Change. Journalists from all over the world will be keen to keep an eye on how their governments are allocating fast start funding money and how that money is being spent in order to bridge the North-South divide of adaptation to climate change.

During the Conference of the Parties (COP15) held in December 2009 in Copenhagen developed countries pledged to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 – 2012 and with balanced allocation between mitigation and adaptation. This collective commitment has come to be known as ‘fast-start finance’.

Following up on this pledge, the Conference of the Parties in Cancún, in December 2010, took note of this collective commitment by developed country Parties and reaffirmed that funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa.

Further, the COP invited developed country Parties to submit information on the resources provided to achieve this goal, including ways in which developing country Parties access these resources by May 2011, 2012 and 2013.

“We don’t know yet”

Just for the sake of having a rather too discursive background on what we can expect from Durban, we hereby attach the words of Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC Executive Secretary, on the upcoming COP17:

“The progress on the infrastructure-building that Cancun delivered is encouraging and an important step forward.  But Cancun fell short of addressing the real political issues, and this needs to be done in Durban.

Of course this concerns the open questions on the Kyoto Protocol and the emerging mitigation framework.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, negotiations are beginning to work against the clock.  With the end of the first commitment period almost in sight, and the critical need to ensure that pledges will be met, there is an urgent need to find a viable way forward in Durban.

Yet within the negotiations, there is still uncertainty on how the nature and status of emission reductions should be handled going forward.

Many Parties want targets for Annex I Parties to be inscribed in a new second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol.  Others have stated that they will not participate in a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and would like to see mitigation commitments and actions formally anchored and monitored in a new mitigation framework under the Climate Change Convention.  The European Union has opened the possibility of a second commitment period if others embark on comparable efforts.

Durban needs to address both further commitments of developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol and the evolution of the mitigation framework under the Convention, while ensuring the differentiated participation of developing countries.  Realistically, and out of necessity, this may need to involve interim arrangements.  Which arrangements?  We donít know yet.  According to what rules?  We don’t know yet.  Interim for how long?  We don’t know yet.”

The Kyoto Protocol committee has decided to suspend Romania from trading green certificates, after it noted breaches in the national inventory of carbon emissions, and the decision will apply until the country meets all requirements, said the Environment Ministry quoted by MEDIAFAX.

According to the ministry, the final decision taken by the Kyoto Protocol committee confirms the preliminary conclusion of the forum’s latest reunion, on July 8. The decision takes effect immediately.

The ministry said it is currently implementing measures to improve its data collection strategy so the carbon emission inventory will be revised.

People close to the matter told MEDIAFAX Thursday Romania stands to lose hundreds of millions of euro following a pending suspension from trading green certificates.

According to the sources, the cause for Romania’s suspension is “lack of confidence in Romania’s ability to estimate greenhouse gas emissions on a national level.”

The suspension from green certificate trading means Romania temporarily loses the chance to sell its green certificates.

Environment Minister Laszlo Borbely said in a news conference in January this year the country had some 300 million units for sale, which meant some EUR1.8 billion.

The National Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2011 was the task of the National Agency for Environment Protection (ANPM).

Borbely said he will dismiss ANPM head Iosif Nagy.

Parties with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Parties) have accepted targets for limiting or reducing emissions. These targets are expressed as levels of allowed emissions, or “assigned amounts,” over the 2008-2012 commitment period. The allowed emissions are divided into “assigned amount units” (AAUs).

Emissions trading, as set out in Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol, allows countries that have emission units to spare – emissions permitted them but not “used” – to sell this excess capacity to countries that are over their targets.
Thus, a new commodity was created in the form of emission reductions or removals. Since carbon dioxide is the principal greenhouse gas, people speak simply of trading in carbon. Carbon is now tracked and traded like any other commodity. This is known as the “carbon market.”

The European Commission has taken an important step in preparing for the full inclusion of aviation in the EU’s emissions trading system (EU ETS) from 1 January next year. The European Commission has decided on the historical aviation emissions which will be used to calculate the number of aviation allowances to be available from 2012.

Foto: Ama Tichie

Connie Hedegaard, European Commissioner for Climate Action, said: ”Emissions from aviation are growing faster than from any other sector, and all forecasts indicate they will continue to do so under business as usual conditions. Firm action is needed. By publishing the data on which allocations will be based, we prepare for the full inclusion of aviation in the emissions trading system. ”

The decision on historical aviation emissions of 219,476,343 tonnes of CO2 represents the average of the estimated annual emissions for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 of all flights that would be covered by the EU ETS performed by aircraft operators to and from European airports. Based on this figure for average annual aviation emissions in 2004-2006, the number of aviation allowances to be created in 2012 amounts to 212,892,052 tonnes of CO2, and the number of aviation allowances to be created each year from 2013 onwards amounts to 208,502,525 tonnes of CO2.

The calculation of historic aviation emissions was based on data from Eurocontrol – the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation – and actual fuel consumption information provided by aircraft operators. Additional calculations were carried out to account for fuel consumption associated with the use of the auxiliary power units (APUs) on aircraft at airports.

EU emissions from aviation have increased fast – almost doubling since 1990. It is estimated that one passenger, flying from Brussels to New York and back in economy class generates in the order of 800 kg of CO2.

To mitigate the climate impacts of aviation, the EU has decided to impose a cap on CO2 emissions from flights operating to and from EU airports. From the start of 2012, some 4,000 aircraft operators arriving and departing in the EU will be covered by the EU ETS. Like industrial installations, airlines will receive tradable allowances covering a certain level of CO2 emissions from their flights per year. Aviation represents around 10% of greenhouse gas emissions covered by the EU ETS.

The inclusion of aviation in the EU ETS is expected to have only a minor impact on ticket prices. If an airline would charge customers for the full CO2 price, with the current carbon prices, the price of an economy class return ticket from Brussels to New York would rise by some twelve euro.

Transport & Environment disagree

T&E calculates that the cost to the aviation sector will be the equivalent of a one-cent per litre tax on aviation fuel which is currently untaxed in the EU.  The effect on ticket prices, if not inflated by airlines, should be less than 1 per cent on average.

This negligible impact on fuel costs is in stark contrast to rates of tax for road transport.  The average level of road fuel tax in the EU is around 48 cents per litre.  The EU also sets minimum levels for road fuel taxes, currently 36 cents per litre for petrol and 33 cents per litre for diesel.

T&E programme manager Bill Hemmings said: “Aviation, by far the most polluting transport sector, still operates in a European-wide fuel and VAT tax haven.  Inclusion of the sector in the EU-ETS is no more than a minor first step.  And it is no excuse for prolonging the massive subsidy of fuel tax and VAT exemptions.  In times of fiscal austerity these subsidies are more irresponsible than ever.”

Later this year, as foreseen in the EU ETS Directive, the Commission will formally determine the amounts of emission allowances to be auctioned, to be distributed free of charge to aircraft operators and to be allocated to a special reserve for new entrants. The EU ETS Directive states that Member States should use all auction revenues from aviation allowances to tackle climate change, including in the transport sector, and to adapt to the effects of climate change.

See MEMO/11/139 for more details.

The United States Republican party has repeatedly stated its disbelief in climate change. Only three days since Congress went into session for the first time in 2011, the majority-holding party has introduced a bill that will reduce the powers of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Republicans seem committed to fighting clean air.

US Envornmental Protection Agency

In the first full day of session, the new Congress introduced three bills, which outline three different strategies, with the purpose of limiting the EPA’s powers. In addition, the House committee on energy and climate issues was shut down, effective immediately.The US has had existing legislation on reducing air pollution since 1963, when the Clean Air Act was put into force. The EPA is the main enforcement body, with the aim of regulating and reducing air pollutants, for example by setting limits to harmful emissions. Now, the text introduced by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (Tennessee), would declare that greenhouse gasses are not subject to the US Clean Air Act. This is in direct contradiction to the US Supreme Court’s decision of 2007.

Another text, put forward by Rep. Ted Poe (Texas), would result in the blocking of funds to government agencies attempting to use a cap-and-trade system. This attempt to erect a barrier to emissions trading can be categorized as anti-capitalist, since the system (e.g. in Europe) is a market-based mechanism used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reduction of emissions. The negative character of the proposed measure shows that Republicans are against this approach, and yet have not made any suggestions for alternatives.

The third, and most modest, idea was introduced by Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (W. Virginia) and seeks to delay the EPA’s regulation of CO2 and methane emissions. In a sense, this would mean no change in the status-quo, a stereotypical feature of conservatism. In fact, this makes it most-likely to succeed. The Democrats strongly opposed the previous two measures, while some more moderate members of the minority party, like Dem. Joy Rockefeller (W. Virginia, a coal-rich state), have stated their support for such a bill.

Congresswoman Capito’s bill would impose a two-year delay on the EPA’s regulation over large industrial sites, but would leave its authority over fuel-economy of cars and trucks. The reason for this can be found in the large opposition in the industry sector to the EPA’s regulations, while auto-makers support the measures.

US Congress - fighting climate change for the people?

So far, Rep. Fred Upton (Michigan) and political strategist Tim Phillips have teamed up in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, to state that the EPA’s moves towards greater regulation “represents an unconstitutional power grab the will kill millions of jobs – unless Congress steps in”. They identify the Supreme Court as a main culprit by giving the green light for the EPA to declare greenhouse gasses as dangerous to human environment and health, effectively allowing it to impose rules.

It is doubtful whether these bills will pass through Congress. All except Congresswoman Capito’s bill are seen as imposing unrealistically tough measures. If they do make it through, it will be up to Pres. Obama to make the final decision. Even though he has been a firm supporter of action against climate change, he might be forced to sacrifice the environment in order to pass other legislation through Congress in the next two years.

The questions which arise out of this situation are rather mind-boggling. In the most democratic country in the world, is it politically correct for Congress to challenge decisions by the Supreme Court? In the separation of powers, the legislature or executive cannot meddle in the judicial system. Yet, it seems that this is now being attempted.

Also, an argument raised by many Democrats has been that Republicans are putting business interests in front of human lives. After all, the Clean Air Act was created because of accidents, such as one that occurred in 1948 in the industrial town of Donora, Pennsylvania, where a smog-cloud lingered over a populated area for five days, killing 20 people and causing another 6,000 to become ill. By imposing restrictions on the EPA, are the Republicans denying that this took place? Or are they stating that the deaths of 20 people are less important than the business interests of industry?

"Take me to your climate leaders" and not your business partners!

In the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the European Union and others have been putting pressure on each other to tackle climate change to improve the human environment. In the EU, this has become a major priority and market-based mechanisms have been put into place to improve efficiency, create jobs, and contribute to economic growth. US Republicans seem not to believe in the same ideas as their European friends.

Also, Pres. Obama’s health-care reform was aimed at increasing Americans’s access to treatment. Reducing air pollution would effectively tackle the problem at the root rather than at the stem, by reducing the number of people who require health-care. Republicans in Congress seem to be ignoring this.

In the face of removing regulation, one can only hope that local governments and authorities will not stop acting to tackle the problem. Communities, cities, and municipalities can all play a major role in fighting climate change, even with lack of legislation. Yet, without the guidance of a national authority, a break in communication might lead to inaction.

Romania’s position in the climate negotiations held at the COP16 – Cancun was a cautious one. The uncertain global context in which important players such as the U.S., Canada, Russia or Japan showed a stagnant or reluctant attitude and the EU continues to be the biggest spender in the emissions reduction cause, made Romania skeptical about cutting emissions by 30% or signing a binding agreement at the present time.

Laszlo Borbely, the Romanian Minister of Environment, leading the Romanian delegation in Cancun, tells us more on these matters.

Interview carried out by Raul Cazan

Translated and edited by Cristina Mircea

2C: The hottest topic at the COP-16 summit in Cancun was the “Fast Start Funding” for helping developing countries to deal with climate change. We know that the EU has already given 2,2 billion euros in 2010 and has a target of 7,4 billion euros by 2012. We also know that decisions on how funds are allocated will be taken at national level. What is Romania’s contribution in this context?

There are voluntary commitments at the present time, to be developed by 2012. And it is very important for us this year to have at least somewhat a compromise on what will follow after 2012. As for Romania’s position on this matter, we have pledged to give 15 million euros by 2012, of which 5 will be allocated next year, and the remaining 10 million, in 2012.

Last week we passed a note to the Government to allocate these funds to the Republic of Moldova, to be invested in projects such as emissions reduction, infrastructure, energy rehabilitation of buildings. I even talked to my counterpart in Moldova, Mr George Salaru, and he pledged to come up with those specific projects until next month. These projects are going to be monitored and achieved by 2012.

2C: What was Romania’s position regarding the climate negotiations in Cancun?

We have to be very cautious, because so far the discussions clearly showed that the U.S. hasn’t taken a single step in signing a legally binding and other countries such as Russia, Japan, Canada are reluctant too, because they accuse the fact that the U.S. , responsible for a quarter of the global emissions, hasn’t properly involved in any of the negotiations.

China on the other hand, even though it hasn’t assumed any commitment, has invested a lot in the green economy, during the last two years.

Personally, I am very skeptical about delivering any spectacular results, or signing  a legal agreement at the moment, but, nevertheless, we have to carefully analyze which way we go from here. Even if the EU has a commitment of up to 30% reduction, we requested an analysis on what that means for every member state, because this means more money and we don’t want to commit ourselves before seeing what happens globally.

This emissions reduction requires a lot of money and affects the economy as well.  The energy prices will be more expensive if you rely more on renewable energy so we have to stay cautious and observe first how the rest of the world approaches this issue, before committing ourselves to some expenses, especially now, during recession time.

Therefore, we have a cautious attitude in terms of reducing emissions by 30% until 2020.

For now let’s see what 20% means in financial terms and what happens in South Africa, at the COP 17 and we’ ll take a decision by 2012. This is Romania’s position.

2C: There is another aspect of this emissions reduction issue, regarding its reference year, which should be 2005 and not 1990. What can you tell us about that?

What these Western European countries have to understand is that after 50 years of communism Romania has made substantial efforts. That is the reason why we insist on 1990 to remain the reference year. We have a number of 300 million AAU’ s allocated, meaning about 1,5- 1,8 billion euros for investments  in the  green economy segment in Romania, by 2012.  We also had a success at the Environment Ministers Council in Luxembourg, concerning the carry-over of the emissions certificate issue, after the expiry of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012.  The developed countries of the EU don’t approve the carrying forward of these units after 2012, but our country has been very firm about finding a way to make this carrying possible and the money to be used for internal compliance, which means reduced emissions for Romania.

2C: You had a bilateral meeting with Poland in Cancun. Did you have any discussions about this issue?

We had many bilateral meetings and the one with Poland was indeed a significant one.

We continue to support Belgium, Hungary and Poland to be stronger and have a say, as they will be the ones holding the EU’s presidency. We also need to correlate because Romania can obviously relate to some point of views regarding the cooperation with these countries. They hold the EU presidency and must have an attitude as a mediator so that we can better negotiate the matter of  these units and the reference criteria to be discussed after 2012.

We also have signed agreements with some of these countries and we support each other, because we have common interests related to big power plant polluters, the possibility of using other fuels than natural gas and also related to the issue of allocated AAU’s.

So we have many ways in which we can make ourselves heard and have an attitude that can influence decisions taken at EU level.

Six months since Bulgaria was banned from the emission trading scheme, the UN body in charge of administering the Kyoto Protocol has stated that the country has corrected its problems. The administrative procedure for re-accreditation has begun and should be completed before the end of 2010.

The question was raised by the Bulgarian delegation to the UNFCCC CoP 16 in Cancun. The UN body replied that the visit by experts to the country in the autumn had produced positive results.

Bulgaria’s accreditation to the ETS was suspended in June 2010, due to problems with the national system of measurement of annual greenhouse-gas emissions in 2007 and 2008. It has come to light that, due to ignoring a message from the UN, the state had not measured emissions from certain sectors, such as waste. Apart from municipal and regional waste depots, the country had a large number of illicit landfills, whose ecological impact was not assessed.

Also, the validity of the data was brought into suspicion due to the lack of communication between the Ministry of Environment and Water, which is responsible for measurement and reporting, and the Ministries of Economy, Agriculture and Interior Affairs, as well as the National Statistical Institute. Nona Karadjova, Bulgarian Minister for Environment, explained that the visiting commission from the UN in the autumn of 2010 had reported that these problems have been resolved. As a result, the country should be allowed to resume trading its quota of 200 million ‘carbon credits’ in the beginning of 2011.

Nevertheless, the Vice-Chairman of the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Dimitar Brankov, explained that the EU had allowed Bulgaria to trade its allowances only in April 2010, which resulted in only 9.4 million credits being sold before the suspension of the accreditation. Since the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, and the CoP 16 did not reach an agreement on a second commitment period, the fact that the country can begin trading again is not going to prove as fruitful as expected, added Mr. Brankov. Also, demand for credits is very low at the moment, which greatly limits the possibility of selling allowances.

Prof. Gwyn Prins, London School of Economics

The failure of the CoP 15 in Copenhagen to produce a comprehensive and legally binding agreement with commitment targets like those in the Kyoto Protocol has been labelled a “necessary evil for a new beginning”. Professor Prins of the London School of Economics presented this theory at the CoP 16 in Cancun on Dec. 8th.

“We need to change the terms of the conversation,” stated Prof. Prins. Since the beginning of the negotiations in Cancun, Japan and Russia have provided strong opposition to the negotiations of a new emissions reduction commitment period. Instead, they have been pushing for a new and better mechanism: one based on human dignity, and not on human sinfulness.

This new mechanism includes three objectives, as described in the Hartwell Paper: a new direction for climate policy, co-authored by  Prof. Prins:

1. Access: allowing people access to energy
2. Sustainability: eradicating emissions of black carbon, reducing tropospheric ozone, protecting tropical forests, and accelerating energy efficiency.
3. Resilience: making poor nations able to combat climate change.

This road-map for a new, post-Kyoto mechanism is strongly supported by the Japanese negotiators at CoP 16. Yet, in the negotiations with the global leader in the fight against climate change, the European Union, Japan has had to face the option of compromising.

Joke Schauvliege, the Belgian Minister for Environment, Nature and Culture and representative of the current Presidency of the Council of the EU stated on Dec 10th that “We had a lot of contact with the Japanese and the Russians, and we tried to find solutions”. She elaborated that “Kyoto as such is not enough” and that “it is possible to find something in between”.

This was supplemented by EU Commissioner Hedegaard’s concerns that a comprehensive legally-binding agreement rests on a new Kyoto Protocol or similar mechanism. She stated clearly that it is “not likely to get a second commitment period”. Yet, as the final day of negotiations began, all parties were “excited” to find out what is in the agreement to come out of Cancun.