Has Japanese “icon” The Kyoto Protocol joined the endangered species list?

Sitting here in Bangkok in the midst if the UN climate change negotiations, it’s so very easy to get caught up in all of the acronyms, the climate in-jokes, and the endless talk where nothing seems to really be said. But, there is one pretty big issue that has cropped up over the past few days, the future of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Kyoto Protocol had a very rocky entry into the world, and it looks like it may be leaving in a similar way.

Let’s start at the beginning….

The Kyoto Protocol entered into the world in its namesake in Japan waaay back in 1997 (the year I started high school!!), under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Because of the need under international law for a set number of countries to ratify the convention, it didn’t enter into legal force until 16 February 2005 (a rather lengthy 8 years after it was first written). For the eager beans out there, the protocol text is available here.

To put it simply, the Kyoto Protocol it is the international community’s current plan to prevent dangerous climate change by reducing global emissions of greenhouse gas. Kyoto is far from perfect but it is still important. It has some pretty significant weaknesses (namely it is darn un-ambitious, not in line with current science or the changed global landscape, and the USA have not ratified it) but none the less, it is a plan.

The existing Kyoto Protocol is set to “run out” in 2012, so the negotiations happening right now are trying to nut out what a post 2012 global climate change agreement, that will protect our futures, should look like.

Currently there are two key negotiating groups at the UNFCCC: one working group is negotiating further commitments under the Kyoto Protocol after the first commitments expire in 2012 (this group is mostly made up of wealthy developed nations minus the USA). The other working group is negotiating for long term cooperative action after 2012 that will include countries and sectors that are not covered under Kyoto (this group includes the USA, non-Annex 1 or developing countries, and emission intense industries like aviation and shipping).

One (of the many) million dollar questions that has been bubbling beneath the surface for a while now is, how will commitments be made? Will we amend the Kyoto Protocol, make a new treaty altogether or end up with two treaties?

On the surface, creating one new treaty sounds like the most sensible option, one agreement that binds developed countries to take strong action, including the USA who have not ratified Kyoto, and that incorporates developing country emission reduction and adaptation plans. This is the approach that the Australian government, amongst others, favour.

But, a number of developing countries are becoming increasingly concerned that developed countries want “to kill Kyoto.” Seeing as a number of countries have not fulfilled the commitments they made under Kyoto, developing countries want to see the Kyoto actions in the new global agreement be enhanced, not re-written. They fear that by doing away with Kyoto any new agreement will be weaker, not stronger.

To me, this sounds like a classic “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water” case. If so much hard work was put into creating the Kyoto Protocol, let’s not simply do away with it, but build on its basic framework and create something more ambitious and broader in scope that addresses the scientific imperatives of climate change.

While a conversation about the relationship between an enhanced Kyoto Protocol (or a successor Protocol) and the outcomes under the ‘long term cooperation action’ group are essential, to me it seems that developed countries signaling they want to do away with Kyoto will only add to a sense of mistrust amongst developing countries.

At this stage of the negotiations, less than 70 days to Copenhagen, it is more important than ever that the negotiations don’t get caught up in issues of mistrust, but rather we concentrate on building upon the basic framework that is already in place.