Shared vision for long-term cooperative action

Japan, echoing what many developed countries want, wishes to abolish this distinction. It wants a new protocol beyond 2012 or an amended Kyoto Protocol so that all countries take responsible actions.

The definition of Annex i countries should be changed based on GDP, per capita emissions, cumulative emissions or future emissions. It further wants to differentiate within developing countries, creating segments, of those who must act now; those who can act later.

In terms of stabilising emissions, there is consensus that the long-term goal is emission reduction by 2050. But there is clear division, and much animosity, about what happens in the interim.

Developing countries are united in demanding Annex-1 countries must take on mid-term emission reduction targets, a 25-40 per cent reduction by 2020 (India says ‘more than 25-40 per cent’) from the 1990 baseline.

Japan, contrarily, believes all parties ‘should adopt the long-term goal of achieving at least 50% reduction of global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) by 2050’; crucially, it does not suggest a base year.

The EU concurs, except that it politely inserts 1990 as the base year; it is even willing to undertake ‘clear mid-term targets’, provided there are ‘fair contributions from all Parties’.

‘Equity must be central to the way forward’, India believes. ‘This requires that any stabilization target should be achieved on the basis of the principle that each human being has an equal right to the common atmospheric resource, accounting also for the histori­cal responsibility of developed countries in building the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere’.

The international community must, therefore, agree to an ‘equitable sharing of carbon space’. India feels a paradigm of convergence of per-capita emissions of developing and developed countries, also accounting for the historical responsibility of developed countries, provides an equitable approach to fair burden sharing.

While it is desirable to share views on the long-term global goal for emission reductions, it is most important to firstly set the mid-term emission reduction target for developed country Parties. Only with such a mid-term target being clearly determined, is it meaningful to talk about any long-term goals for emission reductions.

It is a matter of deep concern that the emissions of Annex I countries have been steadily increasing since 2000, contrary to the provisions of the Convention. UNFCCC data reveals that total Annex I emissions rose from 17,719 Tg CO₂ equivalent in 2000 to 18, 182 Tg CO₂ equivalent in 2005.

Moreover, there have also been increases in terms of per-capita emissions in the Annex I countries. This alarming trend must be immediately reversed. All Annex I countries should adopt deep emission reduction targets for the medium term based not only on technology options but also by adopting specific policies and measures that promote sustainable patterns of consumption and production, including life-style changes.

We, therefore, call on the Annex I countries to adopt targets for reduction of their emissions by more than 25-40 percent by 2020, with further reductions through policies and measures that promote sustainable lifestyles from the 1990 baseline.

1. Developing countries which are expected to take further mitigation actions, based on their economic development stages, response capabilities, shares of GHG emissions in the world etc:
2. Developing countries whose emissions are very little and which are vulnerable to adverse effects of climate change, especially LDCs and SIDS;
3. Other developing countries

Based on the above categorization of developing countries, those countries under Category 1 (expected to take mitigation actions) must take binding targets for “GHG emissions per unit” or “energy consumption per unit” in major sectors and binding targets for economy-wide “GHG emissions per GDP” or “energy consumption per GDP”.

These countries should submit its voluntary national action plan, including policies and measures for mitigation. All these will be measurable and verifiable targets.

Other developing countries will be required to submit voluntary national action plan, including policies and measures for mitigation, to the Conference of the Parties. The voluntary national action plan should be reviewed periodically.

Japan wants a graduation mechanism in place to move developing countries from based on economic and emissions criteria so that they can take binding commitments in the future.

• When a developing country has met the conditions of an upper group in the light of such criteria as indicated in (1)(a), due to its economic development and so on, that country should be graduated into the upper group upon a COP decision.
• A country which voluntarily commits itself to stricter mitigation commitments or actions should be included in the upper group, even if the country does not meet the conditions set out for the group.

FCCC/AWGLCA/2008/16

On principles for contribution by different groups of countries to long-term cooperative action (see also chapter III), Parties proposed that: 

(a) There is need to take into account different national circumstances (Canada,  MISC.1/Add.2; New Zealand, MISC.5), including specific needs and special circumstances of developing countries (Rwanda, MISC.1; Argentina, Brazil, Singapore,  MISC.5), of those particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, and of  those who will bear a disproportionate burden (Argentina, MISC.5), and to take into  consideration the limitations faced by alternative-energy-disadvantaged countries  (Singapore, MISC.5); 

(b) Efforts by Parties should be comparable in relation to their capabilities and social and economic conditions. The establishment of key indicators for guidance in this regard would be helpful, to increase transparency and inspire trust (Iceland, MISC.1); 

(c) A shared vision should reiterate the established legal distinction between the obligations  of Annex I and non-Annex I Parties (Brazil, MISC.5); 

(d) New sight on the differentiation among Parties is required (Australia, MISC.1/Add.2;  New Zealand, Russian Federation, MISC.5), based on recent advances in scientific knowledge and changing social and economic situation in the world (United States,  MISC.1; Russian Federation, MISC.5).

Specific proposals include development of: 

1. A dynamic continuum with different commitments, actions and support for  different countries based on common, objective criteria to guide mitigation  commitments and actions (New Zealand, MISC.5); 
2. An objective basis for graduation of non-Annex I Parties to the Annex I list or  additional lists which may be adopted under a future framework, with a view to  all advanced economies adopting a comparable effort towards the mitigation of  climate change (Australia, MISC.1/Add.2);

(e) Developed countries should: 

(i) Take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof  (Philippines, MISC.1; Argentina, Brazil, China, MISC.5), not only in mitigation  but also in adaptation (Philippines, MISC.1); 

(ii) Provide developing countries with adequate, predictable, and sustainable  financial and technical support and, where appropriate, technology transfer  (Rwanda, MISC.1; Singapore, MISC.2; Argentina, MISC.5);  

(iii) Take more responsibility for historical and present emissions through greater  commitments, tangible results (implementation) and technology transfer and  increased resources to support developing countries (Panama on behalf of Costa  Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama, MISC.5); 

(iv) Take on the bulk of the emission reduction effort through binding commitments,  and cover a large part of the cost of mitigation and adaptation efforts by  developing countries, particularly the low and medium income countries  (Pakistan, MISC.1/Add.1); 

(f) Efforts by developing countries should be supported and enabled by technology and  substantial financial support and capacity-building from developed countries in a reliable  and predictable manner, and in accordance with the national circumstances and capability  of the receiving countries (Norway, MISC.5); 

(g) Financial and technological assistance from developed countries is essential to help  developing countries make the switch to alternative energy sources (Singapore, MISC.5); 

(h) An important equity factor for determining burden sharing is the principle of historical  responsibility for climate change (Brazil, Turkey, MISC.5); 

On the level of stabilization or temperature increase, Parties proposed: 

(a) Limiting global average temperature increase to 2 °C above pre-industrial levels (Iceland,  EC and its member States, MISC.1; Norway, Panama on behalf of Costa Rica, El  Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama, MISC.5);

(b) Making efforts to ensure that global mean temperature increase does not increase from  2.0 to 2.4 °C (LDCs, MISC.1); 

(c) Limiting further global temperature rise to the lowest level possible by setting global  GHG emission reduction goals in line with the suggestions in the IPCC AR4 (Pakistan,  MISC.1/Add.1); 

(d) Stabilizing GHG concentrations as far below 450 ppm CO₂ equivalent as possible  (Panama on behalf of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama,  MISC.5); 

(e) Stabilizing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at the lowest levels assessed by the  IPCC to date (EC and its member States, MISC.1). 

(f) Science can provide no single reference point at which a rise in the average global  temperature would cross a boundary between safe and dangerous anthropogenic  interference with the climate system. Determining ‘dangerous anthropogenic interference  with the climate system’ in relation to Article 2 of the UNFCCC involves value  judgements (Australia, MISC.1/Add.2). 

On the peaking time of global emissions, Parties proposed that they should peak: 

(a) In 2000–2015 (Maldives on behalf of LDCs, MISC.1); 

(b) In the next 10–15 years (EC and its member States, MISC.1; New Zealand, MISC.5); 

(c) In the next 10–20 years (Japan, MISC.2). 

On the quantification of a long-term global goal for emission reduction, Parties proposed that: 

(a) The year 2050 is an appropriate target date for the long-term global goal (Australia, MISC.1/Add.2); 

(b) Global emissions need to be reduced to well below half of the levels in 2000 by the  middle of the twenty-first century (EC and its member States, MISC.1); 

(c) There should be at least a 50 per cent reduction of global emissions by 2050 (Ukraine,  MISC.2/Add.1; Japan, Russian Federation, MISC.5); 

(d) A deep cut in emissions with an early peaking year is required (Bangladesh, MISC.1); 

(e) The goals could be tied to specified levels of atmospheric concentrations of GHGs  (Norway, MISC.1). 

On contribution by different groups of countries to the achievement of the long-term goal, Parties proposed that: 

(a) Developed countries need to continue to take the lead in reducing global GHG emissions  (EC and its member States, MISC.1; Japan, Singapore, MISC.2);

(b) Deeper absolute reductions in emissions are required from developed countries (Brazil, MISC.5);  

• Emission reduction commitments for developed countries as a group in the range   of 25–40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 (EC and its member States, MISC.1); 
• Mid-term goals for Annex I Parties of at least 25–40 per cent reductions below   1990 levels by 2020 (Brazil, MISC.5);  
• Indicative range of emissions for Annex I Parties as a group of 25–40 per cent   below 1990 levels by 2020, in the context of a global goal and agreement that has   comparable effort from all developed countries and NAMAs from developing   countries that reduces their aggregate emissions in the range of 15–30 per cent   below baseline (New Zealand, MISC.5);