Print version Email to a friend

FACTBOX-Winners and losers of U.N. climate deal

Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:34 GMT

Source: reuters // Reuters

(Published by Thomson Reuters Point Carbon)

Dec 12 - More than 190 nations have agreed to be legally bound to cut their emissions of seven greenhouse gases starting no later than 2020.

The landmark agreement struck at U.N. climate talks in Durban, South Africa, has redrawn the 1992 OECD-based developing/developed country line that hampered four years of talks by allowing countries such as China and India to escape mandatory cuts.

As part of the deal, the EU and nine other countries will be subject to a second round of targets under the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 pact that legally binds around 40 countries to cut emissions 5.2 percent under 1990 levels by 2012.

Fresh targets under Kyoto will either expire in 2017 or 2020, but the so-called Durban Platform means countries responsible for more than 85 percent of global emissions have no legally enforceable target until probably after 2020.

Instead those countries, that include the biggest polluters China, U.S, and India, will be only be bound by voluntary pledges made at the previous two U.N. climate summits in Cancun and Copenhagen.

The following is a summary of the key negotiating positions and how successful each group was in achieving its aim.

EUROPEAN UNION

"We think that we had the right strategy, we think that it worked," EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said immediately after the talks ended.

Before the start of the two-week Durban summit, the EU said it would sign up to legal targets under Kyoto if all nations agreed to take on a legal target in a broader pact at some point in the future.

Some deft diplomacy in the run up to the talks meant the EU's demand was accepted for a 2015 deadline for a new deal with cuts to start in 2020.

The wording on the deal's legality - the weakest of which was "an outcome with legal force" - has left enough wriggle room for both the EU and other emitters to claim success.

"Constructive ambiguity," was how one EU delegate put it.

UNITED STATES

Officially the U.S. said it would not commit to a "legal" roadmap unless all other big emitting nations did, although initially it did not want a roadmap.

"There are too many roadmaps that have not gone anywhere," said U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern in the final week of talks.

According to green groups, the U.S. unofficial position was mostly defensive - stall agreement on the sources of long-term funding and try to avoid signing up to a legal roadmap that it may not be able to meet.

The fact that China and India appeared to sign up to a legal deal left the U.S. claiming success.

"We got the kind of symmetry that we had been focused on since the beginning of the Obama administration. This had all the elements that we were looking for," said Stern.

CHINA

China's demand that Kyoto be extended was met - meaning the world's biggest emitter escaped international targets to cut emissions for at least another five-to-eight years.

Its demand that a Green Climate Fund be launched to help poor countries cut emissions was also granted, but it is unclear where the money will come from as countries could not agree on a tax on shipping to capitalize it.

In return, China agreed to sign up to a legal target, although its senior negotiator hinted where future disagreement is likely to lie.

Su Wei said: "In legal terms each party usually has its own interpretations."

China did not get everything it wanted. Calls to start talks on a new deal in 2015, after a review of the science and the existing voluntary pledges, failed.

INDIA

Like China, India wanted a second Kyoto commitment from the EU, a Green Climate Fund, deeper voluntary targets and a delay to the start of talks over a new deal.

It also compromised on its demand to weaken the legal nature of the deal.

In an impassioned speech in the final hours, India's environment minister said she had been threatened to sign up or face the blame that the deal had collapsed.

Jayanthi Natarajan said: "How do I give a blank cheque signing away the livelihood rights of 1.2 billion members of our population? What about common but differentiated responsibility; what about the effort to shift the burden to countries who have not contributed to the problem?"

Her complaint was that the EU wanted the wording "legal outcome" replaced with something stronger. Eventually she settled for "an outcome with legal force."

RUSSIA, JAPAN, CANADA

Main objective was to avoid a second target under Kyoto, which they achieved. The three are now only bound by voluntary goals until a new pact comes into force - a deal that lumps them with the world's three biggest emitters - China, U.S. and India.

Russia wanted the right to be able to sell or keep its 6 billion surplus carbon units under Kyoto - a move that shocked some delegates. That will have to be decided next year.

Japan wanted international recognition of its bilateral offset mechanism, whereby countries can sell cleaner technology to other nations in return for carbon credits they can use to offset emissions.

That wasn't agreed and further discussions will take place in 2012.

SMALL ISLAND STATES (AOSIS)/AFRICA

"We have something good in terms of capturing more action, now we need to ensure that there will be more ambition," said Tosi Mpanu Mpanu, head of the Africa group of countries at the talks.

Main objective was the continuation of Kyoto. That was agreed, but as a sacrifice they had to give up on demands for deeper voluntary pledges to cut emissions cuts this decade for a broader agreement later.

THE PLANET

The planet appeared to be the real loser, according to environmentalists.

"The deal is due to be implemented 'from 2020' leaving almost no room for increasing the depth of carbon cuts in this decade when scientists say we need emissions to peak," said Kumi Naidoo, executive director of Greenpeace.

Existing pledges to cut emissions will fall short by 1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide versus where they need to be to avoid the worst effects of climate change, according to scientists.

Parties agreed to note that there was "grave concern" of a "significant gap" between the voluntary pledges and the cuts scientists say are needed, but countries are under no obligation to take a deeper target. (Reporting by Andrew Allan)