The ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the newly elected Rudd government has received considerable attention here in Bali, in particular for the increasingly isolated position this now puts the US in as the only major developed country not to be party to the Protocol.

Formal Negotiations: Who’s in and who’s out?

The ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the newly elected Rudd government has received considerable attention here in Bali, in particular for the increasingly isolated position this now puts the US in as the only major developed country not to be party to the Protocol. Despite the important role Australia’s ratification has for the Kyoto process, Rudd’s decision to override that of Australia’s negotiators by contradicting their commitment to an emissions cut of 25-40% by 2020 is extremely disappointing as is the failure of the government to concede the need to prevent a 2-degree global temperature rise. Rudd has suggested that ‘further information’is required before Australia can commit to 2020 targets, despite the comprehensive call of the IPCC for immediate emissions cuts. NGOs will no doubt be trying to convince him otherwise when he arrives in Bali next week.

Despite the United States’ continued refusal to acknowledge the need for binding emissions targets, US chief negotiatior Paula Dobriansk entered the negotiations committed to pursuing a “post-2012 framework that successfully rises to the scale and scope of [the climate] challenge”. Civil society organizations and other Kyoto parties will no doubt be pressuring the US to live up to this commitment. One such attempt which surprised many was the proposal from China to create a working group to negotiate targets for non-Kyoto industrialized countries (i.e. the US) of between 25-40% of 1990 levels by 2020.

At the same time as the US delegation here in Bali has been maintaining its traditional obstructionist stance on climate negotiations, domestically the US congress has moved one step close towards comprehensive mandatory emissions reductions. While the proposed Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act has received heavy criticism for handing out US$500 billion in pollution permits to corporations and not proposing deep enough emissions cuts, the Senate committee’s approval of the bill demonstrates how increasingly isolated the Bush administration is becoming through its refusal to commit to mandatory emissions cuts.

Civil society was greatly concerned following statements by Japan suggesting that the country which gave life to the Kyoto Protocol may be looking to abandon it on its tenth anniversary. Fortunately Japan later confirmed it was not planning to abandon Kyoto, though somewhat confusingly, it refrained from making a clear commitment to binding emissions reductions. Japan’s statements suggest a concerning shift towards the position of the US government which has refused to accept binding emissions reductions targets and pressured for reductions from high emitting developing countries. In an equally worrying move Canada has also firmly sided with its powerful neighbour by refusing to take on firm emissions targets unless developing countries did so as well.

With developed countries collectively showing little interest in taking urgent action on climate change, it has been up to the 43-member Alliance of Small Island States to raise the bar in demands for emissions reductions. Alliance chair Granada said that even the European Union target of limiting warming to a temperature rise of 2 Celsius over pre-industrial levels were insufficient to avoid dangerous climate change, calling for ‘drastic action’.

A key concern for developing countries, highlighted by the head of G77 in the second day of negotiations, has been the failure of the negotiations to address the need for transfer of clean technologies to developing countries. Rather than discussing mechanisms for technology transfer, the Parties spent 3 hours debating whether the issue should be included as a separate agenda item.

Funding for adaptation or adapting to funds?

Funding for adaptation remains a crucial issue and one which will need careful monitoring in future years particularly as it is likely that the Global Environment Facility and World Bank, two institutions which have received considerable criticism in the past from development and environmental NGOS, will likely be the secretariat and trustee of the fund respectively. Of crucial importance for negotiators next week will be the need to make concrete commitments on the finances they will make available through this fund. To date the few hundred million dollars available through international adaptation initiatives has paled in significance beside the obvious need of low lying states, islands and LDCs for tens of billions of dollars in adaptation financing. Two issues in particular have dominated debate in the NGO arena, both concerning potential ‘solutions’ to climate change. Avoided deforestation through the proposed ‘Reduced Emissions through Deforestation and Degradation’(REDD) has been high on the agenda, followed closely by its infamous sibling agrofuels.

REDD: the new Black?

After being vigorously supported by the host country Indonesia and an alliance of ten other developing countries (the ‘Forests 11’), REDD has received a varied response from the NGO and scientic community in Bali. The basic premise of REDD is that of providing compensation to southern countries which reduce their deforestation rates, either through aid money, direct financial compensation or a carbon credit scheme.

Some NGOs have stressed that the need to reduce emissions from deforestation without unfairly disadvantaging those people who depend on forest products for their livelihoods makes some form of avoided deforestation initiative essential. Others however, have highlighted numerous flaws with the proposal including its potential to promote business as usual emissions for northern companies and its inability to ensure that governments and companies won’t profit from the scheme at the expense of  local communities.

Biofuels: curse or cure?

A key culprit in deforestation in developing countries is the increasing push for agrofuels such as palm oil, which are expected to more than double in production in the next 5 years. Proposed by some as a carbon neutral substitute for fossil fuels, numerous workshops, includ ing one co-convened by AID/WATCH, PAN AP and IBON Foundation have highlighted the detrimental impact agrofuel production can have on the environment and lives of those who produce them, most of which are in developing countries. Critics of the push for increased agrofuel production have cited that efforts by the global north to reduce emissions must be premised on ending a reliance on energy intensive lifestyles, rather than simply shifting the environmental and social impacts of these lifestyles onto the countries of the global south.

A people’s protocol on climate change

Alongside the social negotiations here in Bali have been a myriad of social side events as well as workshops and cultural events centered around the nearby Civil Society Organisations (CSO) Forum and Global Village for a Cool Planet. A common theme throughout these latter two forums has been the need to ensure the rights and needs of people and communities are not ignored, or unfairly disadvantaged by global efforts to combat climate change.

Another such initiative which AID/WATCH has been involved with in Bali is the push for a People’s Protocol on Climate Change in recognition of the limited voice allowed in th e Kyoto process for those communities, especially in the global south, who will be the worst impacted by climate change. The people’s protocol will seek input and support from people’s groups across the world in the lead up to the 2008 meeting of parties in Poznan, Poland.