Climate Change Negotiations Since COP-6

November 2000

COP-6

Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) held their sixth annual negotiating session (or Conference of the Parties, known simply as COP-6) in The Hague in November 2000. There, diplomats sought to fill in the unfinished details of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which would reduce industrialized countries’ emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Though progress was made on many key issues, negotiators from the United States and European Union ran out of time to reach final agreement on the most contentious issues, particularly limits on the use of domestic carbon “sinks” to meet national emission reduction obligations. Parties agreed to “suspend” rather than “adjourn” the negotiations.

December 2000

Ottawa Consultations

Following talks in The Hague, some members of the EU and the Umbrella Group (which includes the U.S., Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Russia) were of the view that an agreement was actually very close in The Hague and all that was needed was more time. Roughly two weeks later, governments met informally in Ottawa, Ontario to see if there was an opportunity for Ministers to come to an agreement on a final text. However, they were unable to reach agreement and have since agreed to resume the COP-6 discussions from 16-27 July 2001 in Bonn, Germany. 

March 2001

Bush Declines to Regulate CO₂

In early March, G-8 environment ministers discussed the status of the negotiations at their meeting in Trieste, Italy and issued a declaration committing themselves to strive to reach agreement on outstanding political issues when the climate change talks resume. However, days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator had publicly stated that that the administration was considering imposing limits on carbon dioxide emissions from the nation's power plants, U.S. President George W. Bush said he would not seek to regulate carbon emissions. Characterized as his first broken campaign promise, this move sparked a wave of criticism in the U.S. and internationally, and elicited concern from other negotiating partners regarding the prospects for future negotiations.

Bush Announces U.S. Withdrawal from Kyoto Protocol

On 28 March, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Christine Todd Whitman announced that the Bush administration had no plans to carry out the Kyoto Protocol because it was clear that the U.S. Congress would not ratify it. Whitman said the administration would remain "engaged" in international negotiations on ways to address climate change. But it was unclear what position the administration intended to take at the next formal meeting on the Kyoto Protocol, scheduled for July in Bonn. The President defended his stance by saying the Protocol was “fatally flawed,” that limits on emissions could worsen energy shortages plaguing parts of the country and that he would not support any international agreement that could hurt the US economy.

The global reaction to this announcement was swift and furious, with world leaders and high-level officials urging Washington to reconsider. In Canada, a meeting of environment ministers from the Western Hemisphere in Montreal ended in disagreement after the U.S. declined to go along with a Latin American-backed call for industrialized countries to reduce their emissions. Canadian officials argued that the U.S. was not the only one to blame for the current discord. They noted that Europe's refusal to accept a U.S.-backed proposal allowing the trading of emissions reductions had contributed to the breakdown at The Hague.

April 2001

EU Efforts to Persuade the U.S.

Immediately following the U.S. administration’s announcement, European environment ministers held a two-day gathering at Kiruna, Sweden, where they discussed possible next steps and pledged to pursue ratification of the treaty with or without the U.S. In an effort to keep the U.S. in the Kyoto Protocol, Dutch Environment Minister Jan Pronk, the current president of the international talks, said he would present new proposals for reducing greenhouse gases at a meeting in New York in three weeks. The European Commission traveled to Washington on 3-4 March to urge the Bush administration to reconsider its rejection and explain what other options it has in mind. The EC group also traveled to China, Russia, Iran (as chair of the developing country bloc) and Japan to lobby for support in persuading the US to reconsider.

Consultations in New York, Paris and Stockholm

High-level informal consultations on climate change were held in late April in New York as a parallel but separate event of the ninth meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-9). (See the IISD Briefing Note on Pronk Consultations) The meeting was convened by the President of COP-6, Jan Pronk, and the UNFCCC Secretariat, and gathered representatives 40 to 50 countries. Pronk prepared a brief paper outlining some potential avenues of progress on key political questions, which must be resolved at the COP-6 resumed session. All countries supported the UNFCCC as the framework for international negotiations, and all countries except the U.S. supported the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. said it still believes in the UNFCCC as the framework for its voluntary effort to reduce emissions, but opposes the Protocol and noted that the new administration is engaged in a policy review at the cabinet level, and will present the results at COP-6 resumed session.

May 2001

OECD Discusses Climate

Ministers from OECD countries meeting in Paris in mid-May struggled to avoid a public dispute over global warming. In their ministerial communiqué they stated "OECD governments are determined to overcome their differences over the Kyoto Protocol and will work together to take forward its objectives." The communiqué also said the OECD would "further analyze specific implementation options, including the options contained in the Kyoto Protocol and market-based mechanisms, against the specific criteria of maximizing environmental effectiveness and economic efficiency". Officials at the OECD said that the uneasy peace followed a difficult two-day meeting to redraft the committee's position to adopt a non-binding strategy.

Bush Proposes New U.S. Energy Policy

On 17 May 2001 President Bush released the Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group. The Report proposes looser regulations on oil and gas exploration, and conservation efforts such as a review of gas mileage standards. He also urged a reconsideration of the ban on the reprocessing of nuclear fuel. The report also urges the revision or reinterpretation of a major clause of the Clean Air Act that requires long government review of any modifications of power plants that affect their emissions. On the foreign policy implications, the administration called for a review of American sanctions on certain oil-producing countries. It also calls for cooperation with Canada for a pipeline to bring more natural gas into the U.S.

Regarding climate change, the Energy Plan calls on the President to direct federal agencies to support research into global climate change; continue efforts to identify environmentally and cost-effective ways to use market mechanisms and incentives; continue development of new technologies; and cooperate with allies, including through international processes, to develop technologies, market-based incentives, and other innovative approaches to address climate change. Shortly after the Energy Plan was released, U.S. officials stated they would try to have a proposed alternative to the Protocol ready by June when Bush meets with NATO leaders in Brussels and European Union leaders in Gothenburg, Sweden. U.S. Vice President Cheney has said that an administration task force was working on the proposal but there was no timetable.

June 2001

Climate Discussed at EU/US Summit

The EU and U.S. discussed the fate of the Protocol at the on 14 June at the EU/US Summit in Goteborg, Sweden. The two remained starkly at odds, despite pledges to strengthen dialogue on the issue between the two sides. The EU reaffirmed the determination of its member governments to ratify the Kyoto Protocol by 2002. The Bush administration continued to make clear its rejection of the agreement and the scientific evidence supporting it. A joint statement announced that "we disagree on the Kyoto protocol and its ratification", but at the same time said both sides were "committed to providing strong leadership on climate change". EU officials welcomed a US commitment to take part in the Bonn meeting, where US participation was uncertain.

Informal Consultations in The Hague

Informal High Level Consultations chaired by President Pronk were held at The Hague from 27-28 June 2001 to provide an opportunity for Parties to present their views on his newly proposed consolidated negotiating text released 11 June 2001, and in particular for Parties to indicate whether these texts constituted a balanced package with sufficient "wins" for all Parties. (See the ENB Briefing Note on the Open-Ended Informal High Level Consultations). Parties also commented on the organization of work during the resumed COP-6, scheduled for 16-27 July in Bonn. According to most sources, the key disagreements were not resolved and the prospect of agreement in Bonn remained far from certain.

July 2001

Diplomatic Missions on the Run

In the run-up to the Bonn session, several high-profile bilateral discussions have been held on the Protocol, notably between the Japanese Prime Minister, the U.S. President and the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and France. The EU sent a diplomatic mission to Australia and Japan to further discuss the issue. Japan has come under intense scrutiny in light of the U.S.’s rejection of the Protocol. Because the Protocol cannot enter into force without ratification by 55 countries representing 55 per cent of industrialized countries’ carbon dioxide emissions in 1990, the withdrawal of the U.S. means the support of Japan, Russia, and all of Europe will be crucial. In the most recent talks with the EU, Japan reiterated that it will make its best efforts to ratify the Protocol by next year but insisted that the U.S. must be involved. Japan, and other nations, have also publicly discussed the possibility of amending the Protocol in an effort to lure the US back into the negotiations.

G-77 States Position Prior to Bonn, Criticizes U.S. Unilateralism

Prior to the resumed negotiations to resume in Bonn, the Chair of the Group of 77 (the developing country bloc), Ambassador Bagher Asadi of Iran, emphasized the readiness of the developing world to engage in “real, substantive” negotiations with all other partners. He reiterated the Group’s position on the validity of the Protocol as an international legal instrument and stressed that unilateral withdrawal from multilateral processes was unacceptable. He emphasized that the U.S. should act responsibly towards its international and multilateral commitments. He called on the world public opinion, including the Americans', to keep their pressure on the Administration not to shrink from fulfilling its responsibility with regard to global environmental deterioration. The G-77 Chair also emphasized their readiness for substantive negotiations with the developed partners depended on genuine, substantial progress on the Group’s areas of priority, particularly financial mechanisms, technology transfer, adaptation, capacity-building and Articles 4.8, 4.9 and 3.14, short of which, he said, "no progress should be envisaged."

Latest News

For the latest news on the issue of climate change, check out “Climate News”