Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Background for
climate
negotiationsRules and practices
Content
Science recap
Dirty job
One step backward
Practicalities
Science recapScience recap
“….stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”
The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.
Environment
Society
Society
EconomyEconomy
Environment
Key messages of science (AR4, Stern)
Human-induced change is unequivocal Faster than expected…
Impacts generally negative Compounding poverty, fragility, inequality
Warming beyond 2°C = “danger” (EU promoted)
Prevention is cheaper than cure (globally) Early action costs less than inaction
Stern: 5 to 20 times less (global estimate) Pathway to “safety” will knock <3% off global GDP
growth to 2030 <0.12% per annum
SOURCE: Stern Review; IPCC, 4TH Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report
Global average temperature increases above 2°C are expected to cause significant ecological and social disruption
Temperature above preindustrial
4. Ecosystem
6. GDP
1 .Weather
2. Water
3. Food
5. Social
1º C 2º C 3º C 4º C 5º C
Scenario A1BIPCC AR4 worstcase scenarios
Changes in water availability, threatening up to a billion people
Threat to local water supply as glaciers melt
Major cities around the world threatened by sea-level rise
Many more species face extinction
Ecosystems extensively and irreversibly damaged
More than a billion people may have to migrate – increasing the risk of conflicts
Loss of up to 20% of global GDPLoss of GDP in developing countries
Falling yields in many developed regions
Falling crop yields in many developing regions
More intense storms, forest fires, droughts, flooding, and heat waves
Impacts – evolution of knowledge (2001-2009)
Sea level rise -projection
Dirty job
Continued global emission growth means1.1ºC - 6.4ºC global average temperature increase during 21st century
year
Projected global temperature increase
Projected and observed fossil fuel emissions
Indicator Emissions Probability of ecxeeding 2ºC
Intervallum
Representative case
Total CO2
emission 2000–49
886 Gt CO2 8–37% 20%
1,000 Gt CO2 10–42% 25%
1,158 Gt CO2 16–51% 33%
1,437 Gt CO2 29–70% 50%
Total Kyoto gas emission 2000–49
1,356 Gt CO2 eq. 8–37% 20%
1,500 Gt CO2 eq. 10–43% 26%
1,678 Gt CO2 eq 15–51% 33%
2,000 Gt CO2 eq. 29–70% 50%
• An emission budget of a trillion tonnes CO2 during the first 50 years of this century.• Of that budget, we already used up a third in the first nine years• At present rates of emissions, we will use up the remaining two-thirds in another 20 years, by around 2030
The Risk
Current proposals leave us on track to 3 degrees or more!
Source:IPCC WG3 AR4,, den Elzen, van Vuuren; Meinshausen; Global GHG Abatement Cost Curve v2.0; Catalyst analysis; C-ROADS
Global GHG emissions and pathways for GHG stability
GtCO2e per year
Expected temperature increase
3.0˚C
2.0˚C
1.8˚C
Probability of temperature increase under 2˚C
15-30%
40-60%
70-85%
Low range of proposals
High range of proposals
Peak at 550 ppm, long-term stabilization 550 ppmPeak at 510 ppm, long-term stabilization 450 ppmPeak at 480 ppm, long-term stabilization 400 ppm
Delay in peaking of emissions
Financing needs and sources assuming 25% caps in developed countries, € billion, annual average 2010-20 rounded to nearest € 5 billion
Mitigation
10-25
Adaptation
10-20
Public fiscal revenues
10-20
Total need
45-50
Internat-ional transport levies
5-20
Concess-ional debt
5-15
Public finance
10-15
ETS auction revenues
65-100
Carbon market inter-ventions
10-20
Direct carbon markets
55-80
ETS markets
Source:Project Catalyst analysis
Could be mobilised through:• AAU offset purchases (~ € 5 billion)• AAU market intervention (€ 0-5 billion)• AAU auctioning (€ 5-30 billion) - as per
Norwegian proposal
Could be delivered through:• Government offset purchases (~ € 5
billion) potentially increased by market interventions (€ 0-5 billion)
• AAU auctioning (€ 5-30 billion) - as per Norwegian proposal
The developing country financing need can be met by a combination of direct and indirect carbon market financing and public finance
One step backwardOne step backward
Per capita fossil fuel CO2 emissions
Today 1750-2007
Interest groups – top 25 footprints
Saudi Arabia,Malaysia
Top 25 in CO2 emissions(incl. LUCF)
Top 25 in GDP
USA, China, EU25, Russia, India, Japan, Germany, Brazil, UK, Italy, France, Mexico, Indonesia, Iran, Thailand
Myanmar, D.R.Congo
Canada, Rep. Korea, Australia, S. Africa, Spain, Poland
(Taiwan), Netherlands, Argentina
Turkey
Egypt,Nigeria,Vietnam,Philippines,Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Pakistan
Top 25 in Population
Assessing the problem
Negotiations are driven by science Growing confidence in IPCC assessments
Caveat: re “Summary for policy-makers”
Motivation to act is highly variable Low spatial correlation between cause and
effect• Large variation in capacity to cope Many losers - but some short-term winners
Debate of the appropriate response
Mitigation or Adaptation?
Mitigation = division, confrontation
Vulnerability = unifying condition
Adaptation = unifying message Adaptation first?
Lost in translation?
Responsibility “common but differentiated
responsibilities” historical responsibility (equity) responsibility for the future national circumstances,“respective
capabilities” burdens or opportunities
11 Mar 2008 23
Mitigation strategy:options
5. Targets National OR sectoral Absolute OR intensity
6. Policies Market-based (top-down) OR Technology-driven (bottom-up)
7. Vision Low-hanging fruit (energy efficiency,
reducing deforestation) OR Low-carbon “future technologies”
Effectiveness, fairness, responsibility, potential
(Data for 2000, 6 KP gases - except 1950-2000)Source: CAIT % World
emissionsTons per cap(tCO2e)
1950-2000 cumulative CO2 - % world + T/cap
Intensity Kt/M$GDP
ExclLUCF
InclLUCF
ExclLUCF
InclLUCF
Energy EnergyPlus LUC
ExclLUCF
USA 19.2 24.3 0.70
EU 25 13.2 10.5 0.46
Annex I 48.4 39.3 14.1 13.9 73.8%456 T/cap
52.6%457 T/cap
0.64
World 5.9 7.2122 T/cap 171 T/cap 0.80
Non-Annex I
43.7 54.2 3.3 4.9 27.1%42 T/cap
47.6%103 T/cap
0.91
China 13.6 3.9 0.98
India 4.5 1.6 0.67
Effectiveness, fairness, responsibility, potential
(Data for 2000, 6 KP gases - except 1950-2000)Source: CAIT
% World emissions
Tons per cap(tCO2e)
1950-2000 cumulative CO2 - % world + T/cap
Intensity Kt/M$GDP
ExclLUCF
InclLUCF
ExclLUCF
InclLUCF
Energy EnergyPlus LUC
ExclLUCF
USA 19.2 24.3 0.70
EU 25 13.2 10.5 0.46
Russian Fed. 5.3 13.0 1.86
Japan 3.8 10.8 0.41
Annex I 48.4 39.3 14.1 13.9 73.8%456 T/cap
52.6%457 T/cap
0.64
Non-Annex I 43.7 54.2 3.3 4.9 27.1%42 T/cap
47.6%103 T/cap
0.91
China 13.6 3.9 0.98
India 4.5 1.6 0.67
Brazil 2.7 5.3 5.5 13.4 0.76
Indonesia 1.4 7.0 2.4 14.9 0.84
Strategic parameters
• Aim: avoid “dangerous interference”– Two aspects: Mitigation + Adaptation
• To limit climate change to “safe” (tolerable) levels
• So that the challenge of adaptation is manageable
• & sustainable devt. and food security not impaired
• Criteria:– Inclusiveness (=> effective, fair)– Solidarity– Urgency ….but…
• Question: “safe”, “tolerable”, “manageable”
• but for whom?
Shared vision … differentiated future
• Long-term mitigation goal (50:50)• Low-carbon future: technology, markets
and finance– 2020 peak with current technologies
(efficiency)– New technologies: market share or shared
remedies? (IPRs)– Market incentives vital but not enough– Need for green FDI and more public finance
• Differentiated commitments in common framework of accountability
PracticalitiesPracticalities
Main actors: Parties and coalitions
Parties
Coalitions
Non-actors Lobbyist NGOs Media
Major negotiating groups
• The Association of Small Island States: AOSIS• The European Union• Umbrella Group, which emerged at Kyoto and afterwards, brings the JUSSCANNZ countries except Switzerland together with the Russian Federation and Ukraine.• JUSSCANNZ consists of Japan, the Unites States, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Norway and New Zealand• G-77/China•Environmental Integrity Group: Swiss, Mexico, Korea BASIC - Brazil, South Africa, India and China
The Secretariat of the UNFCCC
Negotiating groups – G-77, China
Negotiating groups within the G77 & China African Group which consists of 53 African countries, which
is mainly concerned with the impacts of climate change; Group of Latin America and the Caribbean which has 33
members and is primarily concerned with economic development opportunities;
Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) which consists of 42 members which are the especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change; and
Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) the members of which have a mutual concern regarding the impact on the oil export revenue as a result of reduced use of fossil fuel.
Least Developed Countries - countries with the lowest income
Regional groups
Africa
Asia
Central and Eastern Europe
Latin America and the Caribbean States (GRULAC)
Western Europe and Others (WEOG)
Bodies of the Convention
Five bodies are established by the UNFCCC:
•The supreme body of the UNFCCC is the Conference of Parties (COP) • which meets every year and • it is a supreme body of the UNFCCC. • comprised of all Parties that have ratified the Convention;
• The COP is supported by the Secretariat, Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI):
• SBSTA provides scientific, technical and methodological advice to the COP
• SBI assist with the assessment and review of the implementation of the Convention
• The two bodies (SBSTA and SBI) also work on compliance, mechanisms and capacity building.
Bodies of the Protocol
Conference/Meeting of the Parties – similar role as COP under UNFCCC
• The COP/MOP is supported by the Secretariat, Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI);• SBSTA provides scientific, technical and
methodological advice to the COP/MOP and • the SBI assist with the assessment and review of the
implementation of the Protocol;
JISC, CDM EB, Compliance committee
Innovations of Bali
AWG-LCA – something new…
Extension of mandate in Copenhagen
AWG-KP – post 2012 structure of the Protocol
Extension of mandate in Copenhagen
Negotiating rules
Submissions
Interventions
Informal meetings
Coalition formation
Horse trading
Chairing
Decision making process
Formal rules of engagement
Bodies, bodies and bodies UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol
Regional representation
Levels of negotiation
Behind the curtains (off-record)
Meetings – the iceberg
Practicalities
Information sources Daily Programme ENB Screens
Documents Deciphering abbreviations When to get what? What to read, leave aside
Dramatic arrangements
Food and drink, logistics
Daily Programme
Official meetings
Informal groups
Groups other than Convention and Protocol bodies
Contact information
Status report of consideration of agenda items
Events
Issues – where to get the info?
Annotated agenda
Background information on the site of the Convention (www.unfccc.int)
Document counter…
Ask the neighbour, whoever comes….
The Screen…
Earth Negotiations Bulletin (www.iisd.ca) (+Eco)
Daily Programme
Types of documents
FCCC/CP or FCCC/CMP Provisional or regular documents/agenda
INF.docs Information documents
Misc.docs Miscellaneous documents
Add. Addendum
CRP Conference room papers
L. Documents Limited documents
Non-papers Informal documents
TP Technical papers
