The 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa,[1] resulted in a set of interrelated agreements for furthering international action on climate change. These included the establishment of a new process for working toward a binding, comprehensive agreement on mitigation (the Durban Platform), a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, and a variety of instruments for implementing components of the 2010 Cancun Agreements.[2] Although directly applicable only to national governments that are Parties to the Convention, collectively these agreements define an implicit realm of areas in which reporting requirements and emission reduction obligations are likely to be apportioned to the private sector at some point in the future.

1. The Durban Platform

UNFCCC Parties agreed to establish a new “process to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention and applicable to all Parties.” In addition, the Parties agreed to create a new negotiating body, the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (AWG-DP), to carry out the task of defining the structure and details of a comprehensive climate action mechanism.[3] In essence, the agreement calls for countries to participate in a three-year process, beginning in the first half of 2012 “as a matter of urgency” that is designed to result in an outcome that is rule-based or has legal effect. The words “binding” or “commitment,” however, are not found in the agreement and the Platform does not address the legal form of commitments that could emerge from an outcome with legal force.

Details of the mechanism must be completed by 2015, with implementation of the new mechanism to begin in 2020. Once in effect, the new protocol, instrument, or outcome will replace existing UNFCCC mechanisms, including the Kyoto Protocol. The Durban Platform also requires the AWG-DP to take up a discussion of the long-term implementation of matters which are currently subject to negotiation by other UNFCCC bodies,[4] including mitigation, adaptation, finance, transparency, technology transfer, and capacity-building.

Implications for the private sector

The Durban Platform launches a long-term process, with mid to long-term implications. Political willingness on the part of countries to commit to a meaningful, comprehensive agreement will hinge, in part, on participants furnishing data that is accurate, transparent, complete, and comparable. National governments cannot accomplish this alone. Requirements for private sector emitters in all sectors to provide increasingly accurate and standardized data on their emissions is an inherent part of process.

Ken spoke at an event hosted by Global Witness called "REDD Monitoring for Effective Implementation," which occurred on December 10th, 2009 during the COP 15 conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. The event focused on the importance of strong governance institutions and civil society for making any REDD program a success. REDD—which stands for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degredation—is a program by which forest acreage is monetized and incentives are created to prevent its destruction.

Ken was joined on this panel by speakers from the World Bank and the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization, and his presentation stressed the foundational role of compliance and enforcement in the rule of law, good governance and sustainable development.

REDD Monitoring for Effective Implementation (2nd Article) [Earth Negotiations Bulletin]

After international negotiators met in Barcelona at the beginning of November, predictions on the likely outcomes—or lack thereof—from December’s Copenhagen conference have popped up everywhere. In the immediate aftermath of the Barcelona meetings, the consensus amongst those in the United States and the West more broadly was that Copenhagen was headed for failure—at least insomuch as a legally binding treaty like the Kyoto Protocol is off the table.

Since then, the situation has only become more muddled. Evidence abounds for those looking either to take a more optimistic view of the upcoming meeting, or those looking to bolster the more pessimistic outlook.  In recent days, the optimists may be gaining more evidence. President Obama’s recent trip to China birthed several positive announcements with regard to the two country’s climate action, including from a joint statement released at the end of these bilateral meetings which noted that

The United States and China, consistent with their national circumstances, resolve to take significant mitigation actions and recognize the important role that their countries play in promoting a sustainable outcome that will strengthen the world’s ability to combat climate change.  The two sides resolve to stand behind these commitments.

In the past few days, both countries have backed up that statement, by announcing that they will come to Copenhagen with hard commitments to emissions reductions; the U.S. “in the range of 17%” while Chinese have pledged to reduce the carbon intensity of their economy by 40-45%. Just pledging commitments of any kind is a significant step for Copenhagen; it was disputes over commitments like these that derailed the Barcelona talks.

The nature of these commitments, however, may give the pessimists some ammunition—President Obama’s commitment is still tied to action in the Congress, where any outcome is far from certain. In any case, a reduction of 17% is much less than many developing countries were calling for, and much less than the IPCC suggested cuts of 25-40% by 2020. For China, some experts have noted that currently enacted policies ought to fully cover China’s commitment, meaning that the Chinese have essentially pledged themselves to “business as usual” emissions.