ViewpointArticles 4.8 and 4.9 of the UNFCCC: adverse effects and the impacts of response measures
Introduction
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol received a major breakthrough with the adoption of the Bonn Agreement and the Marrakech Accords. Nonetheless, there are still tensions between means to minimise the adverse effects of climate change on vulnerable countries (adverse effects) and means to minimise the impacts of efforts to reduce emissions on the economies of energy exporting countries (impacts of response measures). This issue has been described by the first Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC as ‘one of the most critical aspects’ of the climate change negotiations (Capdevila, 2000).
Negotiations on the adverse effects/impacts issue revolve around Articles 4.8 and 4.9 of the UNFCCC and Article 3.14 of its Kyoto Protocol. This paper focuses on two key actor groups in these negotiations: the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Both groups are members of the broader G77/China grouping which encompasses 130 developing and least developed countries (LDCs). AOSIS and LDCs are seeking assistance to help them to minimise the adverse effects of climate change. OPEC countries believe that policies and measures to implement the Kyoto Protocol in developed countries (such as a carbon tax) will reduce revenues from oil exports and so argue that they should receive assistance to compensate for these losses. This paper explores the dimensions of the adverse effects/impacts issue.
Section snippets
The adverse effects/impacts issue in the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol
Action to tackle the problem of climate change was formalised with the adoption of the UNFCCC in May 1992. As of 7 September 2000, all of the 43 AOSIS member countries (excluding the four observing countries) have ratified the UNFCCC, as have 10 of the 11 OPEC member countries (Iraq has not). The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is the ‘stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’ in
Article 4.8
Article 4.8 is the key to the adverse effect/impacts problem. It commits parties to give: “full consideration to what actions are necessary… including actions related to funding, insurance and the transfer of technology, to meet the specific needs and concerns of developing country parties arising from the adverse effects of climate change and/or the impact of the implementation of response measures, especially on small island countries…. countries whose economies are highly dependent on income
Article 4.9
Article 4.9 commits parties to ‘take full account of the specific needs and special situations of the LDCs in their actions with regard to funding and transfer of technology’. This article, therefore, explicitly refers to least developed nations as distinct from ‘developing’ nations mentioned in Article 4.8. The inclusion of Article 4.9 was at the insistence of the LDCs (of which 10 are SIDS), particularly those in Africa, as a means to distinguish their particular circumstances from other
Article 3.14
Article 3.14 is the major adverse effect/impacts clause of the Kyoto Protocol. This article clearly demonstrates the global nature of the agreement, which takes developing countries’ concerns into account, particularly those of OPEC. Article 3.14 goes beyond Articles 4.8 and 4.9 in that it requires developed countries to ‘strive to implement’ their Kyoto commitments ‘in such a way so as to minimise adverse social, environmental and economic impacts on developing country parties’, particularly
The state of negotiations
At the COP-3, when the Protocol was adopted, the parties decided to launch a process to identify actions needed to meet the needs of those developing countries specified in Articles 4.8 and 4.9 (UNFCCC, 2000). A work programme was adopted at COP-4 which was intended to culminate at COP-6, at which time Article 3.14 was also to be considered, effectively creating a convergence of action on all three articles. In March 2000, there were two separate UNFCCC subsidiary body workshops on Articles 4.8
Outlook
Though negotiations over Articles 4.8, 4.9 and 3.14 advanced substantially in the last COP, we suspect it will remain a sticking point for years to come. OPEC’s claims, particularly for compensation, are opposed because they could entail financial payments for losses which will be virtually impossible to quantify and by AOSIS because they potentially divert funding and technology transfer away from developing and LDCs, as well as stalling progress on implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.
We
Conclusions
Recent developments in the climate negotiations have advanced considerably the issue of adverse effect/impacts of response measures. Nevertheless, potentially dangerous problems are eminent for the regime and in particular for G77/China. OPEC’s demands for assistance to compensate for lost oil revenues and their strategy of equal progress on all issues under negotiation impedes progress on adaptation in developing and LDCs. G77/China needs to rethink its strategy in light of its long-term goals
Acknowledgements
This paper was prepared as part of a New Zealand Science and Technology Postdoctoral Fellowship in conjunction with a Visiting Fellowship to the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at UEA, Norwich. The authors would like to thank two anonymous referees for their helpful comments.
References (12)
- Barnett, J., Adger, N., 2001. Climate dangers and atoll countries. Working paper no. 9, Tyndall Centre for Climate...
- Biermann, F., 1999. Justice in the greenhouse: perspectives from international law. In: Toth, F. (Ed.), Fair Weather?...
- Brack, D., Grubb, M., Windram, C., 2000. International Trade and Climate Change Policies. Earthscan,...
- Capdevila, G., 2000. New Talks on Climate Change in the Works. Inter Press Service,...
- Dessai, S., 2001. The climate regime from The Hague to Marrakech: saving or sinking the Kyoto Protocol? Working paper...
- Jones, R., 1999. An analysis of the effects of the Kyoto Protocol on pacific island countries: identification of latent...
Cited by (41)
Global disparities in agricultural climate index-based insurance research
2022, Climate Risk ManagementCitation Excerpt :The importance of insurance as a climate adaptation tool was also highlighted by the United Nations Convention on Climate Change in 1997 by the Kyoto Protocol. The protocol argues for a need to facilitate capacity building to assist developing and least developed countries adapt to a changing climate (Barnett and Dessai 2002). The capacity includes identification and facilitation of adaptation options (like agricultural climate index-based-insurance) which would require technological capabilities for monitoring and assessment of climate risks.
The oil endgame: Strategies of oil exporters in a carbon-constrained world
2015, Environmental Science and PolicyJust Transition as an Evolving Concept in International Climate Law
2023, Journal of Environmental LawPerspectives on climate information use in the Caribbean
2023, Frontiers in Climate
- 1
Tel.: +44-1603-593911; fax: +44-1603-593901.