EVOLUTION OF NEGOTIATIONS FROM COP13/CMP3 TO COP 18/CMP8
Climate negotiations from Bali (COP13/CMP3 in 2007 to Doha (COP18/CMP8 in 2013 produced major packages of decisions that include (i) the Bali Road Map, (ii) the Copenhagen Accord, (iii) the Durban Platform and (iv) the Doha Gateway.
In 2007, at the thirteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, held in Bali, Indonesia, the international community had set itself the ambitious goal of finalizing the provisions of the post-Kyoto Protocol by the time of the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen in December 2009 at the latest. The outlines of this goal were set out in what became known as the Bali Action Plan. It consisted of four main building-blocks: mitigation; adaptation; technology transfer and capacity building; and funding. In Bali, for the first time, the Conference of the Parties called on developing countries to participate voluntarily in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through “nationally appropriate mitigation measures … supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner” [FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1.]
On 18 December 2009 in Copenhagen, the Conference of the Parties “took note” of the Copenhagen Accord, which reduces the Bali Road Map to a three-page document, significant for the lack of any legally binding text, the absence of quantified commitments on the part of developed countries for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and a promise to fund adaptation and mitigation measures to the tune of $30 billion between 2010 and 2012, and $100 billion per year from the year 2020. This minimal agreement resulted in a tailing off of discussions on the technology transfer and capacity-building blocks, and a very modest level of expectations from Cancun (sixteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties) in 2010.
At the Durban conference, held from 28 November to 9 December 2011, a new road map was drawn up with a view to fulfilling the process initiated in Bali. Thus the “Durban Platform” was launched. It will work to find compromises in the various building-blocks under discussion and will move towards the development before 2015 of “a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties” [FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1] whose initial implementation is expected to start from 2020.
In 2012, the “Doha Climate Gateway” negotiated at the eighteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties provided an opportunity for developed countries participating in the second stage of the Kyoto Protocol (the Parties listed in Annex I) to commit themselves to reducing their overall emissions by at least 18 per cent by 2020 compared to 1990 levels.
In sum, negotiations over the past six years have had the following salient features: (i) a status quo on the post-Kyoto regime, which has resulted in an extension of the current protocol to 2020, but without the participation of Canada, Russia, Japan and New Zealand; (ii) voluntary commitment on the part of developing countries to participate in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; (iii) commitment on the part of developed countries to contribute the amount of $100 billion annually to climate financing from the year 2020.
In Durban, African countries, include Nigeria, demanded fresh commitments from the industrialized countries at the end of the first Kyoto period (2008–2012) based on the historical but differentiated responsibility between the Parties. The Durban Platform for Enhanced Action was launched in Durban and then the Doha Conference confirmed the extension of the Kyoto Protocol between 2013 and 2020. The funding that needs to be mobilized for the intermediate period covering 2013–2020 has not yet attracted any specific commitment, despite the requests of the developing countries. Doha confined itself to requesting the developed countries to provide, at the very least, the same amount that had been made available during the 2010–2012 period, and to submit, prior to the nineteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, a detailed account of the strategy to be adopted for achieving the goal of $100 billion per year from 2020.
The climate change negotiations are vital to Nigeria’s future prosperity, to our efforts to reduce poverty in our country, and to protection of our natural resource base. The children and youth of Nigeria is committed to playing its part in implementing the UNFCCC negotiations and agreements, to help ensure effective climate change adaptation in this country.
Recognizing the importance of ensuring the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol. Cognizant of decision 2/CP.17, emphasizing the role of the Kyoto Protocol in the mitigation effort by Parties included in Annex I, the importance of ensuring continuity in mitigation action by those Parties and the need to begin the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol without delay, aiming to ensure that aggregate emissions of greenhouse gases by Parties included in Annex I are reduced by at least 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, noting in this regard the relevance of the review referred to in chapter V of decision 1/CP.16 to be concluded by 2015
In terms of mitigation developed countries are called upon to undertake ambitious mitigation commitments from 2013 to 2017 of at least 40 percent and to reduce their emissions by at least 95 per cent by 2050, compared to 1990 levels.
In the area of mitigation, we call for:
1. A clear definition of the modalities for implementing Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) by (i) finalizing the guidelines; (ii) providing financial support; (iii) developing an international register.
2. The increasing emissions of some emerging economies should be addressed.
CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM
We request the UNFCC secretariat, partner agencies of the Nairobi Frameworkhttp://cdm.unfccc.int/Nairobi_Framework/index.html to enhance its support for Nigeria youth
In clean development mechanisms by providing support and availability of financial resources for the following:
Institutional strengthening through, inter alia, support to designated youth organizations in the development and submission of standardized baselines and microscale renewable energy technologies that are automatically defined as additional;
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)
The concept of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) was introduced for the first time during the negotiations at the Eleventh Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP11/CMP1) in Montreal. The plus (+) refers to the conservation and sustainable management of forests and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks. REDD+ is based on the principle that countries that reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation should be compensated financially. This is all the more justified given that emissions of this type represent nearly 20 per cent of the world’s total carbon dioxide emissions and consequently a shift in this trend should result in a significant reduction in emissions.
We recognize that there is a divide between the poorer forested communities in our country and we believe the current mechanism is not working, and we say that there are a number of countries who are dealing with these issues and need better access to finance. Throwing cold water on the idea of a coordinating body does not allow many countries to reap real benefits from REDD+
Consequently, we propose that:
1. There is need to balance finance with needs, and the need for a system for matching finance with support, as well as simplified architecture for results based payments at the national level.
2. There is need for predictable finance – carbon offsets are unpredictable, unsustainable and unreliable. A profound in-depth evaluation of existing markets is needed before further discussions on new markets. There is need to recognize territories and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities as a proven way to protect forests.
On agriculture, parties in Doha, COP 18, did not agree on a workshop and a technical paper on “opportunities and challenges from mitigation in the agricultural sector,” since the G-77 and China favored addressing adaptation concerns rather than mitigation. The concerns of many developing countries that a cap on emissions in agriculture would threaten the livelihoods of many farmers, was strongly articulated by many developing country parties and they maintained that food security should not be relegated to mitigation objectives.
1. We suggest that a progressive and inclusive process that addresses farmers’ priorities and provides farmers with access to science and technological advice to improve resilience, productivity and efficiency.
2. Likewise, we urge the inclusion of mitigation in the discussions, noting that agriculture accounts for half of some country’s emissions.
In Copenhagen the developed countries placed on record their shared commitment to provide $30 billion in new and additional resources between 2010 and 2012 (“fast-start finance”), divided between mitigation and adaptation. By December 2012, only 33 per cent of this sum had been allocated and 7 per cent disbursed
The Copenhagen and Cancun accords also provide for the establishment of a Green Climate Fund (GCF), expected to reach a total of $100 billion per year by 2020, for use in supporting projects and programmes in the areas of mitigation, adaptation, capacity building and development/transfer of technology. The funding sources were not specified in the Copenhagen Accord but are expected to draw on a wide variety of public and private sources, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.
We affirm that challenges of concern that are open for discussions and clarifications between Doha and Warsaw include (1) funding sources between 2013 and 2020, (2) the mobilization of post-2020 funding ($100 billion per year) and the operationalization of the associated Green Climate Fund and (3) the existence of effective arrangements for monitoring financial commitments.
1. The interim financing and resource mobilization mechanisms associated with the level of resources available for the period 2013–2020 and the post-2020 period must be clearly defined and subject to consensus.
2. A detailed outline of the strategy for reaching $100 billion per year from 2020 should be provided by Developed Country Parties
We recognize that technology is been addressed through operationalisation of the Technology Mechanism agreed in Cancun to enable enhanced action on technology development and knowledge transfer to support developing countries to adapt and mitigate climate change, however the use of these technologies (satellite and creative) still remain silo in this part of the world.
The teeming youth of Nigeria calls for more ambitious capacity building through free education exchange, open knowledge transfer mechanism and a coordinated approach towards utilizing these technologies.
COP19 should build on agreements reached during COP 16 in Cancun, Mexico and COP 17 in Durban, South Africa and COP 18 in Doha, Qatar. It should establish a new global climate change regime.
The children and youth of Nigeria expect a balance between climate and development initiatives, and calls for a balance between mitigation and adaptation to climate change. These interests will be better served by a legally binding global action that ensures that temperature increases from greenhouse gas emissions are kept below two degrees Celsius. Anything above this will result in dangerous climate change effects that could undermine efforts to eradicate poverty and underdevelopment. Developing countries will also have to design institutions that can provide developing countries with “adequate and efficient climate support.”
As an African developing country, the children and youth of Nigeria will use the opportunity afforded by COP19/CMP9 to showcase the way in which climate change impacts on the country as well as the responses being implemented.
We call on the development of a technical Paper on best practices and available tools for the use of indigenous knowledge and practices for adaptation, the application of gender-sensitive approaches, and tools for understanding impacts, vulnerability and adaptation.