Natascha Trennepohl 1
2 Brazil in the climate negotiations
Brazil’s position in the international environmental discussions has not always been as progressive as it is nowadays in the climate negotiations. In the early 70s, poverty was considered the main issue and ‘environmental protection should come only after a dramatic development of the country’s economy and an increase of the per capita income to the same level of developed countries’.17
13 Karina Ninni, ‘Comissão vai normatizar mercado voluntário de carbono: Trabalho deve durar mais de um ano, de acordo com coordenador da comissão’, O Estadão, São Paulo, 8 April 2010.
14 Cap-and-trade is a policy tool, a market-based mechanism used to limit pollution. See Robert N. Stavins,
‘Experience with Market-Based Environmental Policy Instruments’ Discussion Paper (Resources for the Future, 2001) at 20. Arnaud Brohé et al. explain cap-and-trade as ‘a system where the government defines a new set of property rights to use the atmosphere based on an emissions limit or cap. Then, after the distribution of the allowances between actors involved in the scheme, it allows trade in these allowances so that actors can choose to conduct abatement or b[u]y additional allowances’. See Arnaud Brohé et al., Carbon Markets: An International Business Guide (Earthscan, 2009) at 42.
15 Marta Salomon, ‘Empresas terão de pagar por poluição acima das metas’, O Estadão, São Paulo, 4 May 2010. The State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2010 also refers to the fact that in Brazil ‘policy mak-ers are considering introducing a domestic cap and trade scheme, primarily covering the energy, transport, industrial and agribusiness sectors’. See Alexandre Kossoy and Philippe Ambrosi, State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2010 (The World Bank, 2010) at 32.
16 According to the European Commission Climate Action website, the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is ‘a cornerstone of the European Union’s policy to combat climate change and its key tool for reduc-ing industrial greenhouse gas emissions cost-effectively’. The system is also described as ‘bereduc-ing the first and biggest international scheme for the trading of greenhouse gas emission allowances’ and as ‘cover[ing]
some 11 000 power stations and industrial plants in 30 countries’. See <http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/
ets/index_en.htm> (visited 1 February 2011).
17 Eduardo Viola, ‘Brazil in the Context of Global Governance Politics and Climate Change, 1989–2003’, VII Ambiente e Sociedade (2004), 27–46 at 30.
In the past decades, however, the economic reality in Brazil has changed and the country has become one of the fastest growing economies in the world. In 2010, for example, its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth of 7.5 per cent ranked eighth in the world considering the GDP at purchasing power parity.18 In addition, it is also possible to note a change in relation to the perception of global environmental problems since Brazil has shifted its position from denying their importance to rec-ognizing that cooperation and solidarity at the international level are the basis to deal with climate change.19
Ken Johnson analyzes the environmental debates in the 90s and argues that Brazil
‘has taken a proactive role in the climate negotiations and has made a number of important contributions to the ongoing negotiations on global warming’.20 The author mentions the Brazilian proposal to set different targets for Parties based on historic emissions, as well as the Clean Development Fund proposal, which was changed and later adopted as the Clean Development Mechanism.21
Eduardo Viola also highlights Brazil’s key role in the climate negotiation process stating that ‘the launch of the CDM proposal implied a moment of remarkable col-laboration between the American and Brazilian diplomacies’; which, however, did not last long since Brazil confronted the United States position several times during the negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol and supported the European Union in the proposal for a strong compliance regime and for the inclusion of limits in carbon sinks. The author concludes by stating that ‘Brazil was a prominent country in ar-ticulating the alliance between the European Union, Japan, and emerging countries that made possible the success in the final negotiation of the Protocol’.22
As mentioned in the introduction, Brazil ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, but it came into force only in 2005 after Russia’s ratification. Brazil continued to play a
18 See Brazil’s profile in Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). ‘The World Factbook’ available at <https://www.
cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html> (visited 6 March 2011). According to the World Factbook, the GDP is the ‘value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year’ and the GDP at purchasing power parity is ‘the sum value of all goods and services produced in the country valued at prices prevailing in the United States. This is the measure most economists prefer when looking at per-capita welfare and when comparing living conditions or use of resources across countries’.
For detailed information about Brazil’s economic growth, see Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatís-tica (IBGE) at <http://www.ibge.gov.br>.
19 Luiz Pinguelli Rosa quotes the last part of Lula’s speech at the 2010 annual meeting with the Brazilian Forum on Climate Change: ‘...we’re all in this together and only the solidarity and international coop-eration will enable us to overcome the [climate] challenges’ (author’s free translation from original in Portuguese). See Luiz Pinguelli Rosa, ‘Reunião Anual com Presidente da República’, available at <http://
www.forumclima.org.br/index.php/eventos/reunioes/153-reuniao-anual-com-presidente-da-republi ca>
(visited 12 December 2010).
20 Johnson, ‘Brazil and the Politics’, supra note 6, at 178–79.
21 See ibid. at 189 and 199–200. The Brazilian proposal argued that historic emissions should be taken into consideration because, despite the fact that annual emissions of non-Annex I countries are estimated to be equal to Annex I countries by 2037, the impact in temperature increase will only be equal in 2162.
See Brazilian proposal, supra note 4, at 23.
22 Eduardo Viola, supra note 17 at 40 and 43.
proactive role in the climate negotiations, but now focusing on a second commit-ment period of the KP. The first commitcommit-ment period expires in 2012 and, therefore, the debate on the future of the KP gained strength during COP13 in Bali (2007) with Brazil working to strengthen the regime under the UNFCCC and the KP, as well as actively participating in the discussions on emissions from deforestation.23 During the COP15 in 2009, Brazil was also a key player in the climate negotiations, not only because of its voluntary emission reduction target and offer to financially support developing countries, but also due to its involvement in the design of the Copenhagen Accord.24 It is worth stressing that despite having voluntary emission reduction targets, Brazil still advocates the use of the principle of common but dif-ferentiated responsibilities,25 firmly supporting the maxim that industrialized coun-tries are historically responsible for the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere, and that developing countries must receive financial aid to imple-ment mitigation actions.
At the moment, the future of the Kyoto Protocol is uncertain and it seems unlikely that a new legally-binding agreement will be reached before the first commitment period expires in 2012. However, the outcome of the Ad Hoc Working Group on long-term Cooperation Action (AWG-LCA) takes note of the Nationally Appropri-ate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) to be implemented by non-Annex I Parties (main-ly developing countries) and formal(main-ly acknowledges the pledges submitted to the Copenhagen Accord.26 Additionally, the outcome of the Ad Hoc Working Group on further commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) took note of the quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets to be imple-mented by Annex I Parties and clearly stated that the Conference of the Parties agrees that ‘emissions trading and the project-based mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol shall continue to be available to Annex I Parties as means to meet their quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives’.27
As pointed out by Aldy and Stavins, the KP has been referred to as a ‘first step’ in addressing the problems caused by climate change and has been considered the first step in shaping the architecture of international climate policy. The challenge,
now-23 See Everton Vieira Vargas, ‘A mudança do Clima na perspective do Brasil’, Revista Interesse Nacional, Ano 1 (2008), available at <http://interessenacional.com> (visited 6 March 2011).
24 Decision 2/CP.15 ‘Copenhagen Accord’, in Report of the Conference of the Parties on its 15th sess., UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1 (2010), Addendum.
25 On this principle, see Tuula Kolari, ‘The Principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibility in Multilateral Environmental Agreements’ in Tuula Kolari and Ed Couzens (eds), International Environ-mental Law-making and Diplomacy Review 2007, University of Joensuu – UNEP Course Series 7 (Uni-versity of Joensuu, 2008) 21–54.
26 See Art. 49 of Draft decision -/CP.16. The AWG-LCA was established in 2007 during the COP13 to work on further negotiations under the UNFCCC.
27 See Arts 3 and 6(b) of Draft decision -/CMP.6. Article 36 of the AWG-LCA outcome also takes note of the reduction targets to be implemented by Annex I Parties. The AWG-KP was established in 2005 to negotiate on further commitments of developed countries under the KP and beyond 2012.
adays, according to the authors, ‘lies in deciding on the next step, in terms of both climate-related goals and the design of policies to implement those goals’.28 This scenario drives the attention to countries and their national policies and strategies to approach the problem and, consequently, to the actors involved in this process.