Frequently asked Questions – Post 2012 and CAN’s position

What is the Climate Action Network (CAN)?

CAN is a coalition of around 400 environmental and development non-governmental organizations in 85 countries worldwide, committed to limiting human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels. CAN members work together to come to common policy positions that represent the views of the network.

What is the basis of CAN’s position on the 2ºC objective?

CAN believes that the global average temperature increase resulting form climate change should remain as far below 2ºC as possible. This objective has its basis in IPCC analysis of the risks of certain impacts types at different temperatures. While it is clear from the diagram that the 2ºC limit does not remove all risk of adverse impacts, particularly as the global average temperature masks regional differences, the risks increase significantly beyond this point. This objective has also been adopted by the EU, and one or two other countries. So far, it appears to be the only attempt to define the “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” that the Convention declares to be its ultimate objective.

What is the significance of “post 2012”?

The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol runs from 2008-2012, and the commitments negotiated under the Protocol will need to be revisited for subsequent commitment periods. Article 3.9 of the Protocol gives a specific mandate for beginning discussions on consideration of new commitments for Annex I (developed) countries seven years before the end of the first commitment period (ie in 2005). In Montreal, agreement was reached to start work on post 2012 commitments under Article 3.9

What is the structure of the Post 2012 discussions?

At the Meeting of Parties in Montreal, in addition to the agreement to begin work on Article 3.9, it was agreed that there should be a so-called “Dialogue on long-term cooperative action to address climate change by enhancing implementation under the Convention” (“the Dialogue”). Since this process is taking place under the Convention, those countries that have either not ratified Kyoto or that do not quantified emission reduction limitations under it, have a forum to discuss issues pertaining to future action. This process has held a number of workshops on issues including adaptation and technology, and there will be an intersessional meeting in 2007. The Dialogue’s mandate finishes in 2007. The third strand in the review of the Protocol has its mandate under Article 9 of the Protocol, which calls for a periodic review of the Protocol in “light of best available scientific information and assessment on climate change and its impacts”. The first Article 9 review took place in Nairobi in 2006 and the second is scheduled for 2008. The talks under Article 3.9 will continue to analyze the emissions reductions potential of Annex I countries until 2008.

Why is CAN in favor of Kyoto-type absolute emissions reduction targets for developed countries?

The first track of CAN’s three track approach is for developed countries to continue taking on quantified emissions reduction limitations post 2012. This type of commitment for developed countries, agreed under the Kyoto Protocol, has certain key features that make it desirous to continue with this approach in subsequent commitment periods. First is the environmental certainty that it provides: once a scientifically-defined emissions reduction trajectory has been defined, the emissions reductions can be shared between Parties. This commitment type also makes operating carbon markets easier than many other commitment types that have been proposed in the academic literature.

Why should developing countries take action to reduce their emissions when they have not caused the climate problem?

The second track of CAN’s three track approach would require the more economically advanced developing countries to assume certain types of appropriate emissions reductions commitments. Although developed countries have been primarily responsible for the growth in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution, the projected growth in emissions comes mainly from rapidly industrializing countries.
 
In order to stay below 2ºC, projections of emissions indicate that reducing emissions from such countries is essential. It is important to note, however, that CAN does not advocate that developing countries should take on the same absolute emissions caps that Annex I countries have under the Kyoto Protocol, as these are inappropriate for their levels of development. However, there is the potential in some of the more advanced developing economies for emissions reductions through other types of commitments post 2012 that reflect the principles of equity, historical responsibility and capability to act, defined by the Convention.

What does CAN see as the role of Adaptation in post 2012?

The third track of CAN’s three track approach is aimed at all countries, as all will have to adapt to the impacts of unavoidable climate change. This means that participation in one of the mitigation tracks does not preclude participation in adaptation efforts. However, this track focuses on providing financial and capacity building support for the poorest and most vulnerable countries, including the small island states and the least developed countries (as defined by the UN).

What is CAN’s position on the Dialogue?

CAN believes that the Dialogue is a notable part of the discussions on future action, providing as it does the opportunity for countries that have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol to take part in discussions on important issues, including sustainable development, market mechanisms, technology transfer and adaptation and adverse impacts.

What is CAN’s position on the Article 3.9 discussions?

CAN has successfully argued for an analysis phase in these discussions, to allow countries to share experience and to gain a common understanding of the challenges posed by climate change and the scope and how to share the burden of the necessary response. Based on scientific studies, CAN thinks that, in order to allow developing countries a fair share of the global emissions budget, developed countries need to reduce their emissions by at least 30% by 2020.

What is CAN’s position on the Article 9 discussions?

CAN was disappointed by the limited scope of the first review of the Protocol, which took place at the Nairobi Conference of Parties in 2006, and also regrets that it did not initiate a new forum for discussions of issues pertinent to post 2012 not covered by agenda items in other fora.

Why does CAN argue for no gap between commitment periods?

The carbon markets and business require a certain degree of political certainty to provide an investment environment conducive to the deployment of climate-friendlier, sustainable technologies. CAN believes continuity is required to signal to the carbon market the international community’s continuing commitment to emission reductions; a gap between commitment periods would severely compromise this signal.

What timeline is required to avoid a gap between commitment periods?

Based on the experience of the Kyoto Protocol, which took three and a half years after the negotiation of the Marrakesh Accords (the agreement that laid out many of the details of implementation of the Protocol) to come into force, the post 2012 negotiations will need to be completed by the end of 2009 at the latest.

Why does CAN believe intersessional meetings will be required?

In CAN’s analysis, it will be essential to have meetings between the biannual main negotiating sessions to be able to achieve an agreement by 2009. One has been scheduled by the Secretariat in autumn 2007, but additional meetings will likely prove necessary. The quantity of work required to come to an agreement for action on climate change post 2012 is unlikely to be completed in the main meetings alone. The negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol required 8½ intersessional meetings over 2½ years to complete its work.

And what is CAN’s vision of a post 2012 agreement?

The work done under the Dialogue and Article 3.9 should be mutually informative and together facilitate the agreement of a single coherent legal instrument. This agreement must be sufficient to address the urgency and extent of the challenges posed by climate change.