CHAPTER III: THE EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE
3.2. Key steps of the development of the international climate change regime for
3.2.4. COP 13: The Bali Road Map
This brought back the question of whether binding limitations should be extended as well for emissions resulting from developing countries. The question, although of great relevancy was still left formally unanswered, even after signs of a regime collapse that came up with the withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol scheme of a major emitter such as the United States.370 Subsequent rounds of negotiations showed lack of progress given the decreased confidence in the UNFCCC as the platform for mobilising a global response to climate change.371
Bearing this in mind, it became easier to navigate through the UNFCCC negotiation forums which are the Conference of the Parties (COPs)372 as they progressively moved towards a new regime for developing countries in Paris in 2015. Considering the aim of the present research, the first COP to be envisaged under next sections of the current chapter will be the 13th, whereas the last will be the 20th. The focus will be put on the COP’s objectives and outcomes with respect to progressive formation of the developing countries’ new regime.
3.2.4. COP 13: The Bali Road Map
negotiated within the following two years.373 Parties were more willing to work together for a new global climate change treaty.374 Key issues at Bali concerned:
i. the post-2012 emission reductions of the industrial countries;
ii. the possible post-2012 participation of developing countries;
iii. adaptation to climate change;
iv. technology and financing of the developing countries, and v. curtailing forest depletion (in developing countries).375
3.2.4.2. Outcome
Several options were discussed in order to extend the limitations of GHG emissions to the group of developing countries, of which some were proposed by developing countries themselves.376 The Conference established two new subsidiary bodies: the first
373 Negotiations had to be completed by December 2009, at the COP15 in Copenhagen.
374 R.L. Arcas ‘Is the Kyoto Protocol an adequate environmental Agreement to resolve the climate change Problem?’ (2001) EEnvLawRev. 282 at 284.
375 ‘The initiative of Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest degradation (REDD+) came up with the Bali Action Plan. REDD + did not alter developing countries’ regime, but solved an economical, and socio-environmental problem by putting more attention on incentivising towards existing forests with the aim of avoiding having them cut down or degraded in the future. Emissions from deforestations and forest degradations which are covered by the REDD+ initiative represent 11% of global emissions.’ Information available at: http://www.unredd.net/documents/redd-papers-and-publications- 90/un-redd-publications-1191/fact-sheets/15279-fact-sheet-about-redd.html. (Accessed: 26 October 2016).
376 The following are alternative approaches proposed for the inclusion of developing countries under emission limitation scheme:
1. Kyoto-Style fixed targets: A form of an agreed percentage reduction against annual emissions in a base year 1990, opening the way to the calculation of an absolute number of tons of CO2 to be reduced.
2. Per Capita: it considers the equal right of each person to use the atmosphere as a global commodity.
No reference to current emissions levels, but a global budget equally allocated to countries based on population.
3. Brazilian Proposal: Bases its burden sharing approach on historical responsibility for change in temperature to individual countries. The original Brazilian proposal attributed responsibility among Annex I countries for an overall reduction of 30% below 1990 levels by 2020.
4. Emission Intensity: requires reductions of emissions relative to economic output (GHG/GDP). It therefore allows growth in emissions if there is economic growth. To account for different national circumstances, commitments could be formulated as a percentage decrease from each country’s own emissions intensity.
5. SD-PAMs Sustainable Development Policies and Measures: SD-PAMs suggest that developing countries themselves identify more sustainable development paths and commit to implementing these with financial support from the developed countries.
6. Evolution of the Clean Development Mechanism: Extending the CDM already in place within developing countries will not be a commitment to reduce emissions domestically, but could instead be an important form of a nationally appropriate mitigation action.
under the UNFCCC (the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long term Cooperative Action
“AWG-LCA”)377 and the second under the Kyoto Protocol (Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I parties “AWG-KP”).378 The two subsidiary bodies were supposed to complete their works in two years, at COP 15, in Copenhagen in 2009.
The following negotiations were held under the two subsidiary bodies within their respective statutory mandates and life spans.
The attempt in Bali was to retain the Annex I/Non-Annex I balance of mitigation commitments, but also to increase the sense of urgency on both sides.379 However, the final document, the “Bali Action Plan” was neutral as it included no quantitative emissions reduction for any party.380 Dutt and Gaioli381 qualified it to be a simple echo of the position of the USA which opposed the idea of any emission limitation to be imposed on either party,382 although it launched an appeal towards large emitting developing countries such as China, India, Brazil and Mexico, for concrete actions on emissions limitations.383 Under the lead of China and India, the appeal made by the USA
7. Global Triptych: Focuses on three sectors – electricity generation, energy-intensive industries and
“domestic sectors” (including residential and transportation). It also takes into account the technological opportunities available in various sectors.
See UNDP “the Bali Road Map, Key issues under Negotiations” (2008) at 41 – 47. Available at:
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Environment%20and%20Energy/Climate%20Change/B ali_Road_Map_Key_Issues_Under_Negotiation.pdf. (Accessed: July 16, 2016).
377 ‘The Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) was established as a subsidiary body under the Convention by decision 1/CP.13 (the Bali Action Plan) to conduct a comprehensive process to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action, now, up to and beyond 2012, in order to reach an agreed outcome to be presented to the COP for adoption’. Information available at:
http://unfccc.int/bodies/body/6431.php (Accessed: 02 June 2016).
378 ‘In 2005, the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) at its first meeting in Montreal, by its decision 1/CMP.1, established the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP). The AWG-KP was established to discuss future commitments for industrialized countries under the Kyoto Protocol. The AWG-KP reported to the CMP. In 2012, the CMP, at its eighth session, adopted decision 1/CMP.8 (the Doha Amendment). In doing so, the CMP decided that the AWG-KP had fulfilled the mandate set out in decision 1/CMP.1, and that its work was concluded.’ Information available at:
http://unfccc.int/bodies/body/6431.php (Accessed: 02 June 2016).
379 UNDP (2008) “the Bali Road Map, Key issues under Negotiations” New York at 29.
380 Ibid UNDP (2008); Bali Action Plan available at:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/cop18/eng/08a01.pdf#page=3. (Accessed: 09 May 2016).
381 G. Dutt & F. Gaioli ‘Negotiations and Agreements on Climate Change at Bali’ (2008) 43 (3) EPW 11 at 12.
382 ‘A historical change of the USA position towards the developing countries commitments first emerged at Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (5 June 2002), and became clear in COP 8 in November 2002. The USA was no longer calling for developing country commitments but was instead opposing the call for any UNFCCC process to discuss future commitments for any party.’ See Höhne (note 344 above; 26).
383 Dutt (note 381 above; 13).
was given a negative answer by the majority of developing countries, thus reinforcing their refusal to commit themselves to any quantitative emission reductions.384 In reply several industrial countries came up and made it clear too, that approving the Bali Roadmap will not mean committing themselves to any quantitative emission reduction after 2012.385 The EU’s legendary position with respect to developing countries’ regime was unmoved.386
In summary, although parties showed clearly what their respective stances towards a new regime for developing countries were, there was nevertheless no significant move recorded. Great expectations for the adoption of a new climate change regime were henceforth put on the next significant COP, announced to be at Copenhagen in 2009.
3.2.5. COP 15: The Copenhagen Accord