United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
OUTCOMES OF THE THIRD SESSION OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES
Kyoto, 1-11 December 1997
The third session of the Conference of the Parties (COP3) to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) was held in Kyoto from 1 to 11 December 1997The Conference adopted the Kyoto Protocol to the FCCC, which will be open for signature for 12 months from 16 March 1998(The relevant COP decision is located in document FCCC/CP/1997/7/Add.1 which can be obtained directly via the Internet at http://www.unfccc.de/).
The Australian Delegation was headed by the Minister for the Environment, Senator the Hon Robert Hill.
An outline of the structure of the Kyoto Protocol is at Attachment A (the full text is in document FCCC/CP/1997/L.7/Add.1 which can be obtained via the Internet at http://www.unfccc.de/)The following outlines the Protocol's key features:
differentiated greenhouse gas emission targets for Annex I countries reflecting their individual circumstances: these 2008-2012 targets based on 1990 emission levels, range from a -8% target for the EU, -7% for the US and -6% for Japan to +10% for Iceland (Articles 3.1, 3.7 and Annex B);a collective target for Annex I countries of 5.2% reductions in emissions from 1990 levels by 2008-2012; this is 30 per cent below business as usual projections (Article 3.1);
comprehensive coverage of all six greenhouse gasesParties have the option to use 1990 or 1995 as the base year for the three synthetic greenhouse gases (HFCs, PFCs and SF6) (Articles 3.7, 3.8 and Annex A);
inclusion of the land use change and forestry sectorAgreement to treat emissions from land use change and forestry sector the same as from other sectors, such as the energy sector, allowing Australia to count:
- changes in net emissions from the land clearing sector (in 1990 land clearing accounted for 24% of Australia's total emissions) (Article 3.7); and- carbon dioxide removals from the atmosphere (or sink activity) resulting from commercial forestry and tree-planting activities commenced since 1990 (Article 3.3);
EU bubble: even though the Protocol text lists each of the EU member states with a uniform target (-8 per cent reduction on 1990 levels) differentiation/burden sharing within the EU bubble will continue but under stronger disciplines than proposed by the EU:
- the terms of the internal EU burden sharing agreement specifying individual member state contributions to meeting the EU's overall reduction target must be notified at the time of ratification, not after (Article 4.2);- that the burden-sharing agreement cannot be amended for the duration of the budget period (Article 4.3);
- the EU cannot simply enlarge to take in new Economies in Transition (EIT) members and redistribute their emission creditsThis can only be done in the context of new commitments for a subsequent target commitment period
(Article 4.4); and- increased accountability of EU members on compliance: in the event of a failure of EU countries to meet their target collectively, individual member states who had not complied with their individual targets, "together with" the EC would be legally liable for non-compliance (Article 4.6);
commitment periods: the first commitment period will apply from 2008 to 2012 - this range of years for the emission commitment introduces additional flexibility for countries compared with a single year target, such as 2010In particular, it enables better comparison of performance relative to emission commitment for those countries with highly variable emission levels (Article 3.1);
emissions trading: agreement to establish an emissions trading regime among Annex I countriesThe details of which will be negotiated over the next twelve months (Article 17);
Clean Development Mechanism: will produce a more centralised and regulated approach for Joint Implementation (joint projects with developing countries)The US and Brazil pushed for the establishment of this Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)Details on the CDM remain unclear (not surprising given that the CDM was first discussed publicly in the closing stages of the negotiations) and will need elaborationAs currently envisaged, the CDM functioning under the authority and guidance of the COP will facilitate the funding of emission reduction projects in developing countries and certify resulting credits (Article 12);
future developing country commitments: the outcome falls well short of Australian (and US, Canadian and NZ) objectivesIn particular, the Protocol does not provide a process for advanced developing countries to voluntarily undertake their own target commitmentsDespite OECD country objectives, in particular the US, to achieving a first step in this direction at COP 3 agreement could not be reached on a process involving timetables and deadlines for developing countries to negotiate target commitments for the second commitment period e.g2013-2017 (by means of a separate Kyoto negotiating mandate);
compliance: details of a compliance mechanism will be left for post-Kyoto negotiationsHowever, an important safeguard in the text is that any binding penalties for non-compliance can be adopted only by amendment to the Protocol (Article 18);
entry into force: the agreement will enter into force when 55 Parties have ratified, including Parties accounting for 55% of Annex I emissionsThe Chairman refused to accept a number higher than this as he and the US would not accept that the US and one other significant emitter would effectively have a veto over entry into force (Article 25); and
policies and measures: the agreement lists a number of policies and measures that countries should aim to implement or further elaborate in accordance with each country's circumstances - this contrasts with the mandatory approach advocated by the EU which Australia (plus the US, Canada, NZ and Japan) opposed (Article 2).
Assessment of the Kyoto Protocol
The principal elements of the Kyoto Protocol meet key Australian objectives (Senator Hill's media release of 11 December)The Protocol:
is based on a set of equitable differentiated country emission targets (detailed in Annex B of the Protocol);an Australian target (+8% on 1990 levels) which is realistic and achievable given Australia's circumstances;
is based on comprehensive coverage of gases, emission sources and sinksImportantly, the agreement recognises Australia's particular circumstances in the land use change and forestry sector, where the sector is a source of emissions for Australia due to historical rates of land clearing (for others the land use change and forestry sector is a net sink);
contains an appropriate set of flexibility mechanisms - particularly international emissions trading, emissions budgets (expressed as commitment periods) and joint implementation (see also Clean Development Mechanism) - which were also important in ensuring that the outcome allows for flexible, cost-effective approaches to reducing global emissions.
Australia was disappointed that agreement could not be reached on advancing developing countries commitments under the ProtocolThe removal of the draft article which would have provided for advanced developing countries to voluntarily assume commitments after the agreement had entered into force and the failure to agree to any Post-Kyoto process for negotiation of future developing country commitments represents a weakness in the packageThis raises serious questions about the ability of the US Administration to secure ratification on the Protocol as it stands.
Assessment of Australia's emission limitation task
Australia is pleased with the Kyoto outcome because the agreement includes differentiated country targets and recognition of Australia's particular national circumstances and trade profile; with the result that Australia has a fair and achievable targetSenator Hill said after the Conference that "this was a win-win result that required a comparable sacrifice from Australians to that being borne by other nations".
As well as providing for equitable differentiation of targets which will help ensure that the costs of taking action are borne equitably on a per capita basis by all Annex I Parties, the outcome on coverage and sinks was critical to determining what sort of emissions target Australia could agree toBased on comprehensive coverage and the inclusion of all sources and sinks, Australia has agreed to limit its greenhouse gas emissions growth to 8 per cent above 1990 levels by 2008-2012.
However, the task Australia has set for itself of limiting emissions growth to 8 % (above 1990 levels by 2008-2012) is a difficult and demanding one that will require considerable effort by all levels of government and the community and full implementation of the Prime Minister's 20 November strengthened domestic greenhouse package:
Previous greenhouse measures have already resulted in a dramatic cut in Australia's projected emissions growth- from 43% above 1990 levels by 2008-2012 to 28% above 1990 levelsFull implementation of the strengthened greenhouse package will limit Australia's emissions growth further from 28% above 1990 levels by 2008-2012 to 18%
The Kyoto outcome reflects the fact that Australia along with other Annex I nations was willing to go further to make more specific target commitments
- agreement to include emissions from the land use change and forestry sector gave Australia greater scope to encourage cost-effective options for reducing emissions- agreement to develop an emissions trading regime (which allows greater flexibility to pursue cost-efficient approaches) also allowed Australia, and other Annex I countries, to agree to more ambitious targets than they would have otherwise
Australia's target represents a significant and challenging cut in emissions growth from business-as-usual
- comparable to the average cut of 30% by developed countries as a group
To meet the commitments negotiated at Kyoto, Australia is confronted with a sizable emission reduction task
- given that around a quarter of Australia's emissions come from the land use sector it would be environmentally unsound for this sector to have been excluded- emissions from land clearing should be treated in exactly the same way as emissions from other sectors
- contributions toward the target will need to be made by all sectors of the economy rather than just concentrated in the land use sector alone
The Kyoto Protocol is a fair, sensible and environmentally effective outcome.
Next Steps
Before the next Conference of the Parties in Buenos Aires in November 1998, parties have agreed to negotiate the rules and arrangements to govern international emissions trading, joint implementation, including with developing countries under the Clean Development Mechanism and the modalities and guidelines to govern inclusion of further activities from the land use change and forestry sector (see document FCCC/CP/1997/L.7)The question of developing country commitments obviously also remains a critical part of the Post-Kyoto agenda.
Future Meetings
COP3 adopted the following calendar of meetings of Convention bodies in 1998-1999:
First sessional period in 1998 (subsidiary bodies meetings) - 2 to 12 June 1998
Second sessional period in 1998 (COP4) - 2 to 13 November 1998
First sessional period in 1999 - 31 May to 11 June 1999
Second sessional period in 1999 - 24 October to 5 November 1999
22 December 1997