The Belarus proposal has highlighted the need for a credible process for Parties joining Annex B in the first commitment period. There also needs to be a clear process on how targets are approved by other Parties. Both are essential for the integrity and transparency of the Protocol. This should be discussed by the SBSTA at its next session. The terms on which their involvement is agreed will also set a precedent for other Annex B entrants and for the post-2012 framework.

The target proposed by Belarus is 95 per cent of its GHG emissions compared to 1990 levels. This target, however, is two per cent higher than the worst-case scenario calculations made by Belarus itself (93 per cent), while current emissions are more than 45 per cent lower than those in 1990.

There is no doubt that some of this has been achieved by prudent GHG reduction measures. Much of it has been achieved through a switch in the fuels used to generate energy. Be that as it may, the high projection of its future emissions entails that additional “hot air” will enter the system. This would diminish the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol.

Furthermore, Belarus’ proposal may reduce the market price of Certified Emissions Reductions and the competitiveness of Clean Development Mechanism projects. Also, because of US’ withdrawal from the Protocol, the potential demand has decreased from when other, similar targets were negotiated by existing Annex B countries.

ECO acknowledges Belarus’ efforts to increase the use of renewable energy, adopt energy efficiency measures and decouple its gross domestic product growth from the growth in its emissions, which have stayed almost stable since 1995. It is also noted that Belarus prepared drafts of the Joint Implementation (JI) legislation and is willing to follow JI track II procedures.  Nevertheless, ECO encourages Belarus to put forward a target, which is more in line with this decoupling.