Profiles
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Conference of Parties 15
Background
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was the result of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The Earth Summit provided for the establishment of frameworks to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and stem climate change, the most notable of which was the Kyoto Protocol established in 1997, which called for mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Countries involved in the negotiations are referred to as parties. Parties are divided into different annexes based on their level of development and their ability to cope with the impacts of climate change. Almost every country in the world is a party to the UNFCCC.
- Annex I: OECD countries, countries with economies in transition (EIT) including the Russian Federation, Baltic States and several of the Central and Eastern European States.
- Annex II: OECD countries, annex II parties are required to provide financial resources and promote the development and transfer of environmentally friendly technology to assist developing countries with reducing their emissions and adapting to climate change.
- Non-annex: Primarily developing countries, certain groups of which are considered particularly vulnerable to climate change and are given special consideration.
When the Kyoto Protocol was agreed upon, the setting of mandatory reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions gave emissions an economic value. To provide some flexibility in how countries meet their targets, the past Conferences of Parties (COPs) have established three market-based mechanisms for doing this. These provisions, include:
- Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): The CDM allows for countries to implement emission reduction or removal projects in developing countries (non-annex countries) to earn certified Emission Reduction (CER) credits, which can be traded, sold or used to cancel out equivalent domestic emissions. In addition, to reducing emissions and allowing countries flexibility in doing so, it stimulates clean development in less developed countries.
- Joint Implementation (JI): JI is similar to CDM with the significant difference being that JI projects are done between two Annex I countries. One Annex I country finances an emission reducing project in another Annex I country and then is allowed to use the credit toward its own emission target, as an alternative to reducing emissions domestically.
- Emissions Trading: Countries which do not emit their allowed amount of greenhouse gas can sell their allowance to other countries, this is known commonly as “carbon trading” because carbon dioxide is the most common greenhouse gas.
In addition to these three market-based mechanisms for meeting the emissions targets established by the Kyoto Protocol, countries can claim credits for any carbon sinks in their territory; a sink is anything that absorbs more carbon than it creates. While there is no limitation on the amount of credit a county earn from preserving and creating sinks, there are limitations on the amount that can be earned from certain land use and forest preservation activities.
COP-15
The Kyoto Protocol is set to expire in 2012 and a new framework needs to be negotiated, in order to meet the stringent greenhouse gas reductions that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated are necessary. The expiration of the Kyoto Protocol and the growing awareness of the impacts of climate change and corresponding need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, have set the stage for COP-15 to take place in Copenhagen, Denmark from December 7-18, 2009. If a new framework is going to be ready when Kyoto expires, it needs to be negotiated during this meeting.
The outcome of the negotiations at COP 15 will have enormous impacts on the marine environment. Climate change is causing an increase in ocean temperatures, which resulting negative impacts including species migration, coral bleaching and an increased risk of invasive species. Additionally, since the ocean absorbs up to 50% of the carbon released into the atmosphere, restricting carbon emissions would reduce the impact of ocean acidification, which is especially harmful to corals and shellfish.
In May of this year, the World Ocean Conference was held in Indonesia. It sought to bring attention to the plights of the oceans as a result of carbon dioxide emissions and the ocean’s key role in climate regulation. Since then Indonesia has called for the issue of ocean acidification to be on the Copenhagen agenda and for nations to receive credits for preserving their territorial oceans, similar to those given for preserving forests.
The conference will also determine any regulations for how future carbon credits will be given. Under the Kyoto Protocol, ocean sinks were not included as reductions of carbon emissions; Kyoto only included land-based sources and sinks when calculating carbon footprints. The negotiations in Copenhagen, with input by countries like ocean-rich Indonesia, could change the game.
However, scientists remain wary of methods used to increase ocean sinks, most commonly, ocean fertilization. Ocean fertilization involves the intentional introduction of iron into the upper ocean in order to stimulate the formation of phytoplankton blooms. The increase in phytoplankton biomass will increase the drawdown of atmospheric carbon dioxide as carbon dioxide is required for photosynthesis. Iron, a trace metal micronutrient required by all plants for photosynthesis, is the limiting factor in phytoplankton growth over much of the global ocean. While there are many proponents of ocean fertilization as the ‘solution’ to climate change (e.g. India’s National Institute of Oceanography and the Alfred Wegner Institute of Germany, which recently conducted a joint and hotly contested, large-scale ocean fertilization experiment in the Southern Ocean), many scientists feel that ocean fertilization is not sufficiently understood to be included as a sink in the new protocol and could in fact, prove damaging to fragile marine environments.
These concerns have upped the ante for the ocean at COP-15. If carbon credits are given for a country’s preservation of its territorial oceans, more countries will be likely to do so, however, if ocean fertilization is approved as a method of reducing a country’s carbon footprint – especially before its full impact is understood – it may impede both ocean conservation and climate change mitigation efforts.
Reference List:
United Nations Framework on Climate Change, “Essential Background” “Documentation” “Kyoto Protocol” “Cooperation and Support” “Parties and Observers,” http://unfccc.int/2860.php
National Ocean and Atmospheric Association, “Ocean Acidification Fact Sheet”, May 2008.
Veby Mega, “Indonesia to Bring Ocean, to COP 15” A Weblog by the International Institute for Journalism of InWEnt. 11 June 2009. http://inwent-iij-lab.org/Weblog/2009/06/11/indonesia-to-bring-ocean-to-cop-15/
Sagarin, Raphael, Megan Dawson, David Karl, Anthony Michael, Brian Murray, Michael Orbach and Nicole St. Clair. “Iron Fertilization in the Ocean for Climate Mitigation: Legal, Economic and Environmental Challenges.” The Nichols Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University.
“Carbon Offset Warning From International Team of Scientists.” Science Daily. 11 Jan 2008. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080110144831.htm
“LOHAFEX: An Indo-German Iron Fertilization Experiment.” Press Release. Alfred Wegner Institute. 13 Jan 2009. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/haog-lai011309.php
updated October 23, 2009
Return to profiles page >
 |
| Facebook 
| Youtube 