The International Climate Change Regime: An Overview COST Workshop November 2009

The International The International Climate Change Regime: Climate Change Regime:

An OverviewAn Overview

COST WorkshopCOST WorkshopNovember 2009November 2009

Meinhard DoelleMeinhard Doelle

Marine & Environmental Law InstituteMarine & Environmental Law Institute

Dalhousie Law SchoolDalhousie Law School

UN Treaty Neg. ProcessUN Treaty Neg. Process

•Binding treaties are first negotiated Binding treaties are first negotiated for contentfor content

•There is usually a clause in the treaty There is usually a clause in the treaty that identifies how many states have that identifies how many states have to “ratify” to bring it into forceto “ratify” to bring it into force

•Once “agreement” on content, open Once “agreement” on content, open for signaturefor signature

•Once states have signed, they can Once states have signed, they can ratifyratify

UN Treaty Neg. ProcessUN Treaty Neg. Process•Once enough states have ratified, Once enough states have ratified,

comes into forcecomes into force•Then binding on states who have Then binding on states who have

ratifiedratified•States who have signed but not States who have signed but not

ratified, are not bound, but can’t ratified, are not bound, but can’t circumvent objectives of agreementcircumvent objectives of agreement

•States who have not signed are free States who have not signed are free to do as they please unless content to do as they please unless content becomes customary international lawbecomes customary international law

UN “MEA” NegotiationsUN “MEA” Negotiations

• MEA’s “usually” start with Framework MEA’s “usually” start with Framework Convention to deal with principles, Convention to deal with principles, process issues, and general objectivesprocess issues, and general objectives

• This is then followed with Protocols that This is then followed with Protocols that have specific targets and measures to have specific targets and measures to get thereget there

• Only states who have ratified the Only states who have ratified the Framework Convention can participate in Framework Convention can participate in the negotiations of Protocolsthe negotiations of Protocols

• Only parties to a Protocol can negotiate Only parties to a Protocol can negotiate its amendmentits amendment

UN MEA NegotiationsUN MEA Negotiations• Any UN member state can participateAny UN member state can participate

– In case of climate change this means those who In case of climate change this means those who contribute the most and those who suffer the mostcontribute the most and those who suffer the most

• Agreement is by consensus unless otherwise Agreement is by consensus unless otherwise agreed (which requires consensus)agreed (which requires consensus)

• On rare occasions, power is delegated (OLD)On rare occasions, power is delegated (OLD)• Achieving consensus takes time and can lead to Achieving consensus takes time and can lead to

lowest common denominator agreementslowest common denominator agreements• In theory a small country can hold up consensusIn theory a small country can hold up consensus• In practice, small countries have little influence In practice, small countries have little influence

unless they build alliancesunless they build alliances

UN MEA NegotiationsUN MEA Negotiations

• G-77 a product of this dynamic, goes well G-77 a product of this dynamic, goes well beyond climate change negotiations, and beyond climate change negotiations, and includes AOSIS, OPEC, African, Asian and includes AOSIS, OPEC, African, Asian and S. American developing countriesS. American developing countries

• EU tends to negotiate as a groupEU tends to negotiate as a group• UG (a less formal alliance)UG (a less formal alliance)• Other alliances on an issue by issue basis, Other alliances on an issue by issue basis,

such as Environmental Integrity Group, such as Environmental Integrity Group, etcetc

Slide showing energy flux through atmosphere

The Science is Complex

There are many complex interactions and feedbacks within the global climate system

Chain of ConsequencesChain of Consequences

• Start with Global Average TemperatureStart with Global Average Temperature

• Change in Precipitation PatternsChange in Precipitation Patterns

• Global, Regional, Local Climate Global, Regional, Local Climate SystemsSystems– Wind patterns, ocean currents, sea level, Wind patterns, ocean currents, sea level,

ice…ice…

• Impacts on ecosystems, agriculture, Impacts on ecosystems, agriculture, forests, fisheries, …forests, fisheries, …

• Social, economic, cultural impactsSocial, economic, cultural impacts

Cautious

Increasing Confidence

The IPCC is the principal source of advice on The IPCC is the principal source of advice on climate change science climate change science

1990

1992

1995

1997

2001

2007

First ReportFirst Report

Second ReportSecond Report

Third ReportThird Report

Fourth ReportFourth Report

UN General Assembly Resolutions

•1988 •Recognizes climate change as a common concern of mankind •Establishes the IPCC

•1989 •Supports UNEP proposal to prepare for negotiations of a FCCC•Decides to convene UNCED in Rio in 1992

•1990 -Establishes the Intergovernmental Negotiating

Committee for the FCCC

No signs of integration so far

… negotiations eventually led to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) with the following key elements:

Principles

Objectives

Institutions

Process

Int’l Climate Change RegimeInt’l Climate Change RegimeUNFCCC

Preamble

•Reference to relative per capita emissions and contribution to GHG emissions to date

•Reference to Developed Countries going first

But: •No explicit reference to integrated solutions•No reference to links to biodiversity

Int’l Climate Change Regime Int’l Climate Change Regime (UNFCCC)(UNFCCC)

Article 2: Goal

•The goal of this convention is the stabilization of GHG concentrations at levels that:

•prevent dangerous human interference with climate system,

•ensure that rate of change allows nature to adapt,

•do not threaten food production, and

•allow sustainable development to take place.

BAU

High Effort

Modest Effort

Future COFuture CO22 Levels Depend on What We Do Levels Depend on What We Do

Projected CO2 Concentrations to 2100

UNFCCCUNFCCC

• Article 3: Principles

•Equity for present and future generations of humans,

•Common but differentiated responsibilities,

•Precautionary approach to be adopted.

•No principle of integration, no formal encouragement of linkages, could read into equity, responsibility, precaution

UNFCCCUNFCCC

• Article 4

•Reporting/national inventories of emissions for all Parties

•Cooperate in finding solutions to Climate Change

•Consider needs of developing countries

UNFCCCUNFCCC

Article 4.2

• Identifies starting point of returning to 1990 levels of emissions by 2000

•Developed countries only•Voluntary (ie no direct consequences)•Did not work:

•Not enough •Very low compliance rate

UNFCCCUNFCCC

Process of identifying what needs to be done to achieve objectives of Convention

• IPCC to advise on the science•UNFCCC secretariat to provide administrative support•COP to meet annually to address substantive issues and develop agreements on how to meet objectives of UNFCCC

•Kyoto the first product of this process, took from 1994 to 1997

Bottom Line: UNFCCC allows but does not encourage integration

Kyoto Protocol: Broad Kyoto Protocol: Broad Overview Overview

• Developed Country Targets (Art 3.1, 3.7)•Absolute emission limits•6 GHGs and comprehensive coverage of sources•Focus on total emissions/country

• Kyoto Flexibility Mechanisms

•Emissions Trading (Art 17, 4, 3.10-13)

•Clean Development Mechanism (Art 12)

•Joint Implementation (Art 6)

Kyoto Protocol: Broad Kyoto Protocol: Broad OverviewOverview

• Sinks to offset emissions (Art 3.3, 3.4)

• Estimate, report and verify emissions, sinks and credits (Art. 5, 7, 8)

• Ensure compliance (Art 18)

• Developing country issues (Art 2, 3, 10, 11)

• Entry Into Force (Art 25)

Bottom Line: KP allows but does not encourage integration

Party Per cent reduction from 1990 levels

European Union - 8Switzerland - 8United States - 7Canada - 6Japan - 6Russian and FSU countries 0Australia + 8

Kyoto Emission Reduction Obligations

Overall reduction for all Annex I Parties combined is 5.2%

2525

Kyoto target563 Mt

671

748Business-As-Usual

450

550

600

750

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

500

650

700

800

GHG Emissions

(Megatonnes of CO2

equivalent)

1990 Baseline599 Mt

703

Kyoto EmissionReduction Obligations

Kyoto – MarrakechKyoto – Marrakech

Role of Kyoto Flexibility Mechanisms

•Offset domestic emissions through other means

•Different types:•Trade with parties that have their own targets (ET)•Joint projects with parties that have their own targets (JI)•Projects in parties that have no targets (CDM)•Offset emissions with efforts to take GHG out of atmosphere (ie Sinks)

•Marrakech Accords set the rules for all this

Kyoto – Marrakech: CDMKyoto – Marrakech: CDM

• Clean Development Mechanism (Art 12)

• Baselines• Additionality• Sustainable development test• Small scale projects• Process Issues (certify project, verify credits)

•Executive Board •National Entities (SD test, Host Party approval)•Operational Entities (works for EB)

Kyoto – Marrakech: ETKyoto – Marrakech: ET

• Emissions Trading (Art 17)•What can you trade?

• Is a ton = a ton = a ton? Legally yes, but•What about leakage (Gen, SINKS, CDM)•What about impact on trading, value of the credit?

•Who is liable? •Seller or buyer liability, impact on integrity of environmental objective and impact on carbon credit market

•Commitment Period Reserve, the compromise•How much can you trade? (Supplementarity)

Kyoto – Marrakech: JIKyoto – Marrakech: JI

• Joint Implementation (Art 6)•Project track

•Compare to CDM•Less concern about additionality, as host has GHG limit•Otherwise similar to CDM•Available even when host has reporting problems under Articles 5, 7, 8

•Non-Project (Trading track)•Compare to ET•Only available if host in compliance with Art 5,7, 8•Can still be project related, but no need to establish baseline and certify, due to impact on host party target

Kyoto – Marrakech: SINKSKyoto – Marrakech: SINKS

• Sinks (Art 3.3)• Covers change in land use re forests (+&-, mandatory)

• Developed Countries (AI)• Credit for Reforestation (1990)• Credit for Afforestation (50 yrs)• Debit for Deforestation

•Harvesting cycles not a land use change


Sinks (Art 3.4)• Voluntary, in developed countries (AI)• Land use change other than forests • Management to increase carbon storage

• Forest management• Crop land management• Graze land management)

• Human induced versus natural• Verification, permanence• Biodiversity impacts


• Sinks (Art 12)•Sinks in CDM

•Applies to sinks projects in developing countries (NAI)

•General CDM rules apply•Credit for afforestation•Credit for reforestation•No debit for deforestation•No credit for avoided deforestation•Permanence, accountability beyond 1st com period key challenges

Forest Land-use Change (3.3)Forest Land-use Change (3.3)

• Article 3.3: The net changes in Article 3.3: The net changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting removals by sinks resulting from direct from direct human-induced land-use change and human-induced land-use change and forestry activitiesforestry activities, limited to , limited to afforestation, afforestation, reforestation and deforestation since reforestation and deforestation since 19901990, measured as verifiable changes in , measured as verifiable changes in carbon stocks in each commitment carbon stocks in each commitment period, shall be used to meet the period, shall be used to meet the commitments under this Article of each commitments under this Article of each Party included in Annex I. …Party included in Annex I. …

Forest Land Use Change Forest Land Use Change (3.3)(3.3)

• Key Implementation IssuesKey Implementation Issues

– What is a forest (tree crown cover of more What is a forest (tree crown cover of more than 10-30% with trees that can reach 2-5 than 10-30% with trees that can reach 2-5 meters in height)meters in height)

– How to deal with the harvesting cycle (not How to deal with the harvesting cycle (not considered deforestation, but in case of considered deforestation, but in case of afforestation and reforestation will affect the afforestation and reforestation will affect the credits granted)credits granted)

– Credits for harvested wood products? NoCredits for harvested wood products? No

Forest Management (3.4)Forest Management (3.4)

• Article 3.4 The COP shall […] decide upon Article 3.4 The COP shall […] decide upon modalities, rules and guidelines as to how, modalities, rules and guidelines as to how, and which, and which, additional human-induced additional human-induced activities activities related to changes in greenhouse related to changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks in the […] and sinks in the […] and forestry categoriesforestry categories shall shall be added to, or subtracted from, the be added to, or subtracted from, the assigned amounts for Parties included in assigned amounts for Parties included in Annex I, taking into account uncertainties, Annex I, taking into account uncertainties, transparency in reporting, verifiability …transparency in reporting, verifiability …

Current Forest Management Current Forest Management RulesRules

• Accounting for carbon stock from forest Accounting for carbon stock from forest management is voluntarymanagement is voluntary

• Once you invoke Article 3.4 for a certain Once you invoke Article 3.4 for a certain area of forest, you have to permanently area of forest, you have to permanently account for the change in carbon stock of account for the change in carbon stock of that forestthat forest

• Currently no separation of natural & human Currently no separation of natural & human induced change, just credit limits for the 1induced change, just credit limits for the 1stst CP, #’s loosely based on assumption that CP, #’s loosely based on assumption that 85% of carbon uptake is natural (for 85% of carbon uptake is natural (for Canada limit is 60 MT Carbon)Canada limit is 60 MT Carbon)

Future of Forest Future of Forest ManagementManagement

• What role should the following play?What role should the following play?– Reward efforts to actually increase carbon Reward efforts to actually increase carbon

storage in forests through change in forest storage in forests through change in forest management?management?

– Fully account for change in carbon stock Fully account for change in carbon stock from forests over time, regardless of causefrom forests over time, regardless of cause

– Motivate action where there are synergies Motivate action where there are synergies between carbon storage & biodiversitybetween carbon storage & biodiversity

– Motivate action where there are synergies Motivate action where there are synergies between carbon storage & forestrybetween carbon storage & forestry

Future of Forest Future of Forest ManagementManagement• Some OptionsSome Options

– Continue with current rules, which are Continue with current rules, which are voluntary, & assume a certain mix of natural & voluntary, & assume a certain mix of natural & human inducedhuman induced

– Country specific baselines for BAU change in Country specific baselines for BAU change in carbon stock (bottom up or top down?)carbon stock (bottom up or top down?)

– Mandatory accounting for change in carbon Mandatory accounting for change in carbon stockstock

– Exemption for natural disturbancesExemption for natural disturbances– Credits limited to carbon stock in natural forestsCredits limited to carbon stock in natural forests

Forest Management, Forest Management, Comprehensive or SelectiveComprehensive or Selective

• Proposed focus by some ENGOs Proposed focus by some ENGOs arguing for selective approach:arguing for selective approach:– Debit reduction in forest biomassDebit reduction in forest biomass– Debit conversion from forests to Debit conversion from forests to

plantationsplantations– Debit conversion from primary Debit conversion from primary

forest to modified natural forestsforest to modified natural forests– Credit new carbon stock in Credit new carbon stock in

degraded forests degraded forests


• Selective can be good if parties select aspects that encourage integrated solutions

• Concern with selective:

– Parties will only select what is easy and cheap to get credits for

– Parties will leave out what is expensive & likely lead to debits

Comprehensive Forest Comprehensive Forest ManagementManagement

• Accountable for all changes in carbon Accountable for all changes in carbon stock of all forests within state, human stock of all forests within state, human and naturaland natural

• Accountable for all carbon taken out of Accountable for all carbon taken out of forest (fuel, pulp for paper, other wood forest (fuel, pulp for paper, other wood productsproducts

• Debit if carbon returns to atmosphere, Debit if carbon returns to atmosphere, credit if used in a way that stores the credit if used in a way that stores the carbon long termcarbon long term


• Concerns with comprehensive:Concerns with comprehensive:

– Complexity, Complexity,

– Risk of unforeseen consequences Risk of unforeseen consequences on GHG emission reduction, on GHG emission reduction,

– Risk of sinks becoming a Risk of sinks becoming a competing land use rather than competing land use rather than complementing biodiversity complementing biodiversity protection and SDprotection and SD

Forest Management ChoicesForest Management Choices

• Whether to continue with voluntary Whether to continue with voluntary approach for forest management or approach for forest management or go mandatorygo mandatory

• How to account for harvested wood How to account for harvested wood productsproducts– Harvesting cycle can be positive Harvesting cycle can be positive

from carbon storage perspective, from carbon storage perspective, but is a threat to biodiversitybut is a threat to biodiversity

• Whether to exempt “natural Whether to exempt “natural disturbances”disturbances”

Forest Management ChoicesForest Management Choices

• Whether to set individual baselines for forest Whether to set individual baselines for forest management (bottom up or top down), ie what management (bottom up or top down), ie what change in carbon stock is deemed “natural”change in carbon stock is deemed “natural”

• The baseline would reflect the characteristics of the The baseline would reflect the characteristics of the forest just before the beginning of the commitment forest just before the beginning of the commitment period. This would include :period. This would include :

• age class structure, age class structure, • growth rates, growth rates, • decomposition rates and decomposition rates and • other factors that affect carbon dynamics and other factors that affect carbon dynamics and

GHG emissions.GHG emissions.

Biodiversity Implications for Biodiversity Implications for ForestsForests

• Use of forests as sinks is a potentially Use of forests as sinks is a potentially competing, potentially complementary land competing, potentially complementary land useuse

• Rules could be changed to further discourage Rules could be changed to further discourage or encourage activities that are a threat to:or encourage activities that are a threat to:– BiodiversityBiodiversity– Sustainable resource managementSustainable resource management– Traditional use of forestsTraditional use of forests– Other potential uses/benefits of forestsOther potential uses/benefits of forests

Bottom Line: Current Rules do not encourage Bottom Line: Current Rules do not encourage integration integration

Kyoto – Marrakech:Kyoto – Marrakech:The Fine Print (Art. 5,7,8)The Fine Print (Art. 5,7,8)

• Articles 5, 7, 8 (estimate, report, verify)•All about tracking credits and emissions•Different Credits: AAU, ERU, CER, RMU•What to do with the credits?

•Issue Credits (verify and certify)•Trading/Transferring Credits•Retiring Credits (used to meet parties’ obligations)

•Canceling credits (eliminated from use)•Recycling credits•Banking credits

Kyoto – Marrakech:Kyoto – Marrakech:The Fine Print (5,7,8)The Fine Print (5,7,8)

• Articles 5, 7, 8•Tracking the credits held by each party at the end of the first commitment period•ET, JI •Sinks Credits (adjusting AAUs)•CDM Credits•Trades tracked through Transaction Log

•Tracking emissions 2008 - 2012•Estimate (5), report (7), verify (8)•Expert Review team process (conservative adjust)•True up period

4848

Kyoto target563 Mt

671

748Business-As-Usual

450

550

600

750

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

500

650

700

800

GHG Emissions

(Megatonnes of CO2

equivalent)

1990 Baseline599 Mt

703

Credits Needed for Compliance

Meeting Emission Reduction Obligations

Domestic EmissionReductions

Compliance System Compliance System OverviewOverview• The Compliance Process

•Referral by Expert Review Team, or any Party•Plenary ((Rules of Proc, Annual Rep to COP…)•Bureau (determines which branch, EB or FB, both?)•Facilitative Branch (all commitments, but no enforcement powers)

•Enforcement Branch (focus on Article 3.1, 5, 7, 8)•Composition of each branch: 1 from each of five regions, 2 A I, 2 Non-A I, 1 small island states

Compliance through Compliance through EnforcementEnforcement

• Tools of the Enforcement Branch

•Compliance Action Plan •Ton Restoration in 2nd Commitment Period with 1.3 Multiplier (without 2nd period target)

•Loss of Eligibility to Sell•Credibility of the Market•Reputation•Integrity of International Rules

Work of the Enforcement Work of the Enforcement BranchBranchCase against GreeceCase against Greece

– Case involved national system for Case involved national system for estimating emissionsestimating emissions

– Responsibility for maintaining Responsibility for maintaining system was in transition from one system was in transition from one to another consultantto another consultant

– Case came to EB from ERT reportCase came to EB from ERT report– Greece not eligible to use Greece not eligible to use

mechanisms until matter resolved mechanisms until matter resolved in Nov 2008in Nov 2008

Work of the Enforcement Work of the Enforcement BranchBranch

Case against CanadaCase against Canada– Canada failed to have its national registry Canada failed to have its national registry

up and running by deadlineup and running by deadline– National registry is key to tracking credits National registry is key to tracking credits

by Annex I parties, linked to ITLby Annex I parties, linked to ITL– Canada got its registry up and running by Canada got its registry up and running by

hearing datehearing date– Finding of past non-compliance, but did Finding of past non-compliance, but did

not proceed furthernot proceed further

Role of Facilitative BranchRole of Facilitative Branch

•Early detection of problem, advice, assistance•Provision of advice•Facilitation of financial and technical assistance, including technology transfer and capacity building

•Formulation of recommendations to a party on what could be done to help a parties comply with its obligations

•Only triggered by ERT or a Party

Work of the Facilitative Work of the Facilitative BranchBranch

1 Case, brought by SA on behalf of G-1 Case, brought by SA on behalf of G-7777– Dealt with failure of many Annex I countries Dealt with failure of many Annex I countries

to submit report on “demonstrable progress”to submit report on “demonstrable progress”– FB split on whether the case was brought FB split on whether the case was brought

properly before it by a “Party”properly before it by a “Party”– Annex I members opposed taking case onAnnex I members opposed taking case on– Case could not proceedCase could not proceed– Plenty of other matters have come up Plenty of other matters have come up

(Canada), but not brought before FB by ERT (Canada), but not brought before FB by ERT or a Partyor a Party

Concluding Thoughts on Concluding Thoughts on The Current RegimeThe Current Regime

•UNFCCC & Kyoto just initial steps along a long path of negotiating and implementing climate regime

• Science suggests 25-40% by 2020, ~ 90 % by 2050 needed in AI

•KP signals the start of a carbon constrained world

•There has been meaningful action in EU, Japan

•There have been some efforts in developing countries

From Kyoto to CopenhagenFrom Kyoto to Copenhagen

•Is the basic architecture of the UNFCCC/KP sound?•What are its limitations?•What needs to change post 2012?

•Role of ET, CDM, JI, Sinks?•New targets for developed countries?•Targets for developing countries?•Better help for developing countries?•Alternative approaches?

•Will new regime spur innovation?•Will new regime be better integrated with other issues?

The Post 2012 NegotiationsThe Post 2012 Negotiations

The ProcessThe Process

• The Bali Mandate 2007The Bali Mandate 2007

• From Poznan to CopenhagenFrom Poznan to Copenhagen

• The LCA AWGThe LCA AWG

• The KP AWGThe KP AWG

The Bali Mandate (2007)The Bali Mandate (2007)

• Formalized a two year process on two tracks Formalized a two year process on two tracks to negotiate the post 2012 regimeto negotiate the post 2012 regime

• Raised status of technology and finance to Raised status of technology and finance to the level of mitigation and adaptation (From the level of mitigation and adaptation (From 2 - 4 Pillars)2 - 4 Pillars)

• Small but potentially significant movement Small but potentially significant movement from G-77 on mitigation: China, Brazil, South from G-77 on mitigation: China, Brazil, South AfricaAfrica

• Some signs of acceptance of the IPCC AR4 Some signs of acceptance of the IPCC AR4 science on adequacy: 2 C, 400 ppm, 10 yr science on adequacy: 2 C, 400 ppm, 10 yr peak, 80% by 2050 peak, 80% by 2050

• Gradual recognition of the interdependence Gradual recognition of the interdependence of developed and developing countries on of developed and developing countries on climate changeclimate change


From Poznan to CopenhagenFrom Poznan to Copenhagen

• Little progress made from Bali to Poznan Little progress made from Bali to Poznan due to US electiondue to US election

• At least five negotiating sessions At least five negotiating sessions between Poznan and Copenhagenbetween Poznan and Copenhagen

• Last two were Bangkok in early October, Last two were Bangkok in early October, and Barcelona in early Novemberand Barcelona in early November

• Comprehensive binding agreement Comprehensive binding agreement seems increasingly unlikelyseems increasingly unlikely


Track 1: The LCA AWGTrack 1: The LCA AWG

• Trying to find a place for the US, otherwise Trying to find a place for the US, otherwise not dealing with mitigation by developed not dealing with mitigation by developed countriescountries

• Trying to deal with mitigation in developing Trying to deal with mitigation in developing countries & assistance neededcountries & assistance needed

• Also dealing with adaptation, finance, Also dealing with adaptation, finance, technology and shared vision (i.e. long term technology and shared vision (i.e. long term targets)targets)


Track 2: The KP AWGTrack 2: The KP AWG

• Negotiations under the KPNegotiations under the KP

• US not a partyUS not a party

• Limited to post 2012 mitigation efforts Limited to post 2012 mitigation efforts of developed countries (other than US)of developed countries (other than US)

• New targets + CDM, JI, ET, SINKSNew targets + CDM, JI, ET, SINKS

• Separation of KP & LCA is making Separation of KP & LCA is making negotiations very difficultnegotiations very difficult


The Substance (LCA & KP AWGs)The Substance (LCA & KP AWGs)

•Shared VisionShared Vision

•AdaptationAdaptation

•MitigationMitigation

•FinanceFinance

•TechnologyTechnology


Shared Vision (LCA)Shared Vision (LCA)

• What is the ultimate goal? GHG What is the ultimate goal? GHG Concentrations, Temperature, Global Concentrations, Temperature, Global Emission Reductions (2050)Emission Reductions (2050)

• How should the overall long term How should the overall long term responsibility be allocated? responsibility be allocated? – AI, NAI? AI, NAI? – Further differentiation?Further differentiation?


Adaptation (LCA)Adaptation (LCA)

• Mainly about adaptation in developing Mainly about adaptation in developing countriescountries

• Sources of funding?Sources of funding?

• How much?How much?

• Who will have access?Who will have access?

• Under what conditions?Under what conditions?

• Role of National Adaptation PlansRole of National Adaptation Plans


Mitigation (LCA&KP)Mitigation (LCA&KP)

• Mitigation by AI - comparability, MRV, Mitigation by AI - comparability, MRV, compliance (including new sinks rules)compliance (including new sinks rules)

• Mitigation by NAI – NAMA & support, Mitigation by NAI – NAMA & support, MRV, NAMA mechanismsMRV, NAMA mechanisms

• REDD plus – relation to NAMAs, meaning REDD plus – relation to NAMAs, meaning of “plus”, indigenous rights, conversion of “plus”, indigenous rights, conversion on natural forests…on natural forests…


Mitigation (LCA&KP)Mitigation (LCA&KP)

• Sectoral approaches – Bunker & aviation Sectoral approaches – Bunker & aviation fuels, agriculturefuels, agriculture

• Cost effectiveness of mitigation – Role of Cost effectiveness of mitigation – Role of markets, ET, CDM, JI, new mechanismsmarkets, ET, CDM, JI, new mechanisms

• Consequences of response measures – Consequences of response measures – Minimize and/or compensate, help all NAI or Minimize and/or compensate, help all NAI or just LDCs, what about OPEC? Trade just LDCs, what about OPEC? Trade measures to protect domestic industries?measures to protect domestic industries?


Finance: Finance: Sources of Funding (LCA)Sources of Funding (LCA)– Private (i.e. CDM) versus publicPrivate (i.e. CDM) versus public– Pledge based or levies?Pledge based or levies?– Bunker & aviation levy?Bunker & aviation levy?– Global Levy on GHG emissions ($2 /ton)Global Levy on GHG emissions ($2 /ton)– Auctioning of AAUs (or levy)Auctioning of AAUs (or levy)– Role of ODARole of ODA– Which Parties contribute?Which Parties contribute?– How much?How much?


• Finance (cont’d) (LCA)Finance (cont’d) (LCA)– Who has access (All NAI? EITs?)Who has access (All NAI? EITs?)– Under what conditions (Compliance Link?)Under what conditions (Compliance Link?)– For what purpose (mitigation, adaptation, For what purpose (mitigation, adaptation,

technology, capacity building, REDD?)technology, capacity building, REDD?)– What institution administers (GEF, What institution administers (GEF,

Multilateral Fund under COP, other?)Multilateral Fund under COP, other?)– Reporting, verification, complianceReporting, verification, compliance

•Compliance, Articles 578, MRV?Compliance, Articles 578, MRV?

•Facilitation and/or sanctions?Facilitation and/or sanctions?

•Contributions v. use of fundsContributions v. use of funds


Technology (LCA)Technology (LCA)

• What technologies will be included?What technologies will be included?– About access to wind, solar, efficiency &About access to wind, solar, efficiency &

other technologies other technologies – What about CCS, Nuclear, Large Scale Hydro?What about CCS, Nuclear, Large Scale Hydro?

• Facilitating tech transfer to NAI (EITs?)Facilitating tech transfer to NAI (EITs?)

• Institutional arrangements? (central or Institutional arrangements? (central or de...)de...)

• Private and/or public funding Private and/or public funding

• What other measures can be taken?What other measures can be taken?– Changes to Intellectual Property rules???Changes to Intellectual Property rules???

Legal ArchitectureLegal Architecture

• Amend Kyoto Protocol plus new Amend Kyoto Protocol plus new Protocol for US & Developing Protocol for US & Developing CountriesCountries

• Single new Protocol for everyoneSingle new Protocol for everyone

• Amend Kyoto Protocol plus COP Amend Kyoto Protocol plus COP decisionsdecisions

• COP decisions onlyCOP decisions only

• COP decisions now, new Protocol(s) COP decisions now, new Protocol(s) laterlater

State of the NegotiationsState of the Negotiations• No agreement on targets for developed No agreement on targets for developed

nations (though some promising signs from nations (though some promising signs from Norway, Japan…)Norway, Japan…)

• US a real challenge to bring back in, may US a real challenge to bring back in, may finally announce a targetfinally announce a target

• Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Russia Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Russia seem reluctant participants, EU not leading seem reluctant participants, EU not leading as it used toas it used to

• All this allows developing countries to resist All this allows developing countries to resist action, though some have movedaction, though some have moved

Things to look out for:Things to look out for:

• On what terms does the US re-engage?On what terms does the US re-engage?

• Is inequity of positions of States who Is inequity of positions of States who are blocking progress being exposed?are blocking progress being exposed?

• What is the negotiating capacity of What is the negotiating capacity of Non-Annex I (other than China, OPEC)?Non-Annex I (other than China, OPEC)?

• Bilateral cooperation (i.e. EU–G-77, EU–Bilateral cooperation (i.e. EU–G-77, EU–US, US- China ... )US, US- China ... )

• LCA and KP processes have moved LCA and KP processes have moved forward in parallel, will they come forward in parallel, will they come together?together?

Key ChallengesKey Challenges

• US a late comer to mitigation & reluctance US a late comer to mitigation & reluctance to accept international oversightto accept international oversight

• Preventing Canada, Japan, Australia, NZ, Preventing Canada, Japan, Australia, NZ, EU from following US out of KyotoEU from following US out of Kyoto

• Inadequate mitigation efforts in many Inadequate mitigation efforts in many developed countries to datedeveloped countries to date

• Adequate finance in current economic Adequate finance in current economic climateclimate

• Bringing developing countries on board in Bringing developing countries on board in a fair and meaningful waya fair and meaningful way

EU Ambassador to US EU Ambassador to US Recent QuoteRecent Quote

• `'The rest of the world cannot be expected `'The rest of the world cannot be expected to sit around the negotiating table in to sit around the negotiating table in Copenhagen twiddling their thumbs, waiting Copenhagen twiddling their thumbs, waiting for the Senate of one country (however big) for the Senate of one country (however big) to deal with other business. And developing to deal with other business. And developing countries will not be willing to agree to countries will not be willing to agree to restrictions on their economic growth in the restrictions on their economic growth in the name of climate change if the United States name of climate change if the United States has not demonstrated that it is prepared to has not demonstrated that it is prepared to join them.join them.

Final ThoughtsFinal Thoughts

• We now live in a carbon constrained We now live in a carbon constrained worldworld

• This means we will either be forced to This means we will either be forced to reduce/eliminate emissions or payreduce/eliminate emissions or pay

• The cost of emitting will go upThe cost of emitting will go up

• The economic opportunities in finding The economic opportunities in finding solutions will growsolutions will grow

• Future of international regime very much Future of international regime very much up in the air at the momentup in the air at the moment

• Time for integrated solutions is running Time for integrated solutions is running outout

Documents

The International Climate Change Regime: An Overview COST Workshop November 2009