United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Protocol of Kyoto

At the global level, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol form the base to address the challenge posed by climate change. The negotiations leading to the adoption of UNFCCC were fraught with tensions between developing and developed countries⁶⁵. Developing countries preferred adapting a framework convention as they feared that strong implementation procedures and institutions might trespass their sovereignty⁶⁶. Presently, the Convention has 195 Parties and consequently enjoys almost universal membership⁶⁷. The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is: “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the

60 World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Program.

61 UN General Assembly 1988, A/RES/43/53.

62 Bodansky 2001, 23 and 27-31.

63 Ibid. 23 and 31-34.

64 Ibid. 24 and 34-37.

65 Harris 2009, 5.

66 Bodansky 2001, 34.

67 UNFCCCf.

14

atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”⁶⁸.

The main principles to tackle climate change were established in the UNFCCC. One of the important principles established in the Convention is the notion of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’⁶⁹. At the first Conference of Parties in 1995 in Berlin, the developed countries acknowledged their greater share of responsibility for causing climate change and thus would search for the means to address it first. Central to the Berlin Mandate was the demand by developing countries that the developed countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and assist the poor countries with sustainable development. Thus COP1 affirmed the idea of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’, meaning that, the developed states have a greater ‘differentiated’

obligation to address climate change although all countries have a common responsibility to do so.⁷⁰

The UNFCCC is complemented by the Kyoto Protocol. The major distinction between the Convention and the Protocol is that the Convention only encourages developed countries to reduce their emission, while the Protocol requires them to do so. Under the Protocol, the European Union and 37 developed countries (called Annex B -countries) are committed to reduce their emissions by a 5 percent average from 1990 baseline level over the five-year period 2008-2012.⁷¹ The emission caps range between countries. The legally binding reductions consist in the emission of six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride.⁷² Developing countries are part of Non-Annex I- group and have no commitments to emission reductions.

The negotiations after 1992 were even more contentious than before. The ratification process of the Kyoto Protocol was everything but easy, and greater doubt was created after President George W.

Bush withdrew all US support for it⁷³. Eventually in 2004, Russia ratified the Protocol and it entered into force in February 2005. The fact that Russia ratified the Protocol was important since it could not enter into force without the ratification by 55 countries representing 55 percent of the total

68 UNFCCC 1992, article 2.

69 UNFCCC 1992, article 3.

70 Harris 2009, 6.

71 UNFCCCc.

72 Vanderhein 2008, 13.

73 For more on US claims and reasons why not to participate in the Kyoto Protocol, see Vanderhein 2008, 15-21.

15

greenhouse gas emissions in the world and the withdrawal of USA had put this into danger. ⁷⁴ By March 2011, 193 countries had ratified the treaty⁷⁵.

Peru ratified the UNFCCC in 1993 and the Protocol of Kyoto in 2002. Since Peru is a Non-Annex I- country, it is not obligated to reduce its emissions. The only obligation for Non-Annex I- countries is to submit national communications⁷⁶. Peru submitted its first national communication in 2001 and the second national communication in September 2010.

Mostly because of the insistence of United States, the Kyoto Protocol includes three market-based 'flexibility' mechanisms. These mechanisms allow Annex B -countries to meet a part of their reductions without reducing national emissions.⁷⁷ These Kyoto mechanisms are Emission trading (also known as 'the carbon market'), the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI). With emissions trading, countries that have emission units to spare can sell this excess capacity to other countries that are over their targets. Of course, the emission units sold must be permitted yet unused emissions. With JI, Annex B -countries can carry out joint implementation projects with other Annex B –countries⁷⁸. CDM allows Annex B –countries to invest in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries and use these emission reductions from the project as part of their own reductions.⁷⁹

Peru participates actively in the Clean Development Mechanism. The country has been ranked as the sixth most important host country of CDM -projects.⁸⁰ At the moment, Peru has 25 registered project activities⁸¹. By the end of 2010, Peru had 190 carbon projects in its portfolio. These represent a USD 11.7 million in investments. Most of the projects are from the energy sector with 147 projects all together. These will produce 25.8 million tons of carbon dioxide reductions per year if implemented. The portfolio also includes 43 projects in forestry sector of which 10 are REDD⁸² initiatives.⁸³

74 Harris 2009, 5-8. More on problems concerning the negotiation process leading to the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol see also Bodansky 2001, 34-37 and Vanderhein 2008, 13-15.

75 UNFCCCf.

76 Parties of the Convention must submit national reports on the implementation of the Convention to the Conference of Parties (COP).

77 Vanderhein 2008, 13.

78 Usually economic transition countries.

79 UNFCCCd.

80 FONAMb.

81 UNFCCCe.

82 REDD means Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation.

83 FONAMb.

16

Even when climate change is now a prominent foreign policy priority, state responses to the problem of climate change and its impacts have not kept up with the increasing speed of climate change; “they are grossly inadequate”. The international political response to climate change has been incremental, delayed and ultimately weak when viewed relative to the degree of the problem and its projected effects on people, communities and the Earth.⁸⁴