With fewer than six weeks to the UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen-the deadline set by the global community to agree on a replacement to the Kyoto Protocol-the distance to a viable climate treaty remains great.  One of the most important areas of work that remains in flux regards the commitments, if any, the developing world will make to lessen or mitigate their growing carbon emissions.

There is broad consensus that, should developing countries continue on a business-as-usual trend of emissions growth, it will swamp any reductions made by individual developed nations, including the United States.  What should be done given that fact is another matter, as the nature and scope of commitments, if any, to be made by at least some developing countries is heatedly contested.  Developing countries often have less capacity for creating a sustainable economy. At the same time, some of the heaviest costs of emissions reductions can be avoided by developing countries, because in many cases, they are working to avoid future emissions, not reduce their current levels. While clear in both principle and practice that developing countries have a right to further economic growth, it is the global community’s responsibility to find ways, including through financing mechanisms and technology transfer, for that growth to not come at the expense of the environment.

The concept that negotiators have settled upon is that of the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA). Unlike the commitments made by developed countries, which are specific, mandated, measurable commitment, NAMAs are voluntary actions supported by technological and capacity assistance from the developed world.

While negotiators reached agreement on the concept at the meeting in Bali, Indonesia in December 2007, as part of the Bali Road Map, there remains considerable negotiation to be done on the specifics. Work on the issues will continue at next week’s meeting in Barcelona. The major issues include:

• The types of actions that qualify as NAMAs-including countrywide or sectoral intensity targets, energy efficiency or renewable energy goals, cap-and-trade or carbon tax systems or participation in emissions trading schemes such as the Clean Development Mechanism;
• The development of monitoring, reporting and verification principles and oversight bodies;
• The creation of a registry of NAMA projects and the development of a life-cycle analysis methodology for NAMA projects; and
• The scope and enabling mechanisms for development and capacity assistance;

In other areas, more significant differences remain.  A major continuing issue involves whether NAMAs are contingent on and congruent to funding provided by the developed world, or can be attempted unilaterally.  Also remaining to be determined is the relationship of NAMA activities to any future flexible mechanism, which might replace or modify the Clean Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation and emissions trading as we know it.

For further information about this topic, please contact Akin Gump.