Apr
18
Post Kyoto Protocol Treaty or Bilateral Agreements?
April 18, 2008 | | Leave a Comment
by Eva Chang (11)
As 2012 approaches, doubts loom over the ability of the states, which gave them commitment, to cutback certain percentages of their greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, to continue and enhance efforts, talks over the possibility of a post Kyoto Protocol treaty occured in the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali held in December 2007. The talks specified areas of weakness such as the failure of states to implement policies needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and expansion of the commitment to countries such as India and China. The talks ended with the parties extending their commitments to cooperate and participate in succeeding negotiations for a post Kyoto Protocol treaty.
Three months later, the Bangkok Climate Change Talks occured in Bangkok from March 31 to April 4, 2008 to determine future goals for the negotiation process that should culminate in a final treaty before the end of 2009 during the climate change conference in Copenhagen. The final treaty will cover long-term commitment and enhanced action to mitigate climate change, adapt to the effects of climate change, and optimize finance and technology to support sustainable targets.
There is anxiety over the achievement of a formal post Kyoto Protocol treaty by 2009. Yvo de Boer, a top official of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, commented that 2009 is just one and a half years away, a very short period for formalizing a treaty as a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, when this involves complex issues and negotiation processes. Achieving this requires the states to keep to their commitment and comply with their expected contribution to the negotiation process.
There might be cause for anxiety since during the Bangkok talks, the United States raised the recognition of efforts to address climate change on an international scale made outside of the United Nations climate change framework through the various domestic and bilateral agreements. This has a dual implication. On one hand, the United States could be suggesting the integration of efforts made within the United Nations climate change efforts with the efforts of the states outside of this framework in order to achieve a broader goal. On the other hand, this could suggest the intention of the United States to place the weight of its efforts towards bilateral and multilateral agreements instead of the post Kyoto Protocol treaty. The United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol even if it made a commitment on its own to cutback greenhouse gas emissions. The intention of the United States would become apparent through its activities now until the next conference in 2009.
Meanwhile, bilateral agreements persist. The U.K. and France signed on March 27, 2008 a declaration containing their joint commitment in addressing climate change. The EU-US “Open Skies” Air Transport Agreement, signed on March 30, 2008 contained a provision on technical cooperation for climate change. The U.S.- Russia Strategic Framework Declaration, signed on April 6, 2008, covered energy use and climate change. More bilateral agreements will happen in the future. These could either support the formalization of a post Kyoto Protocol treaty or overshadow it.
