EU Climate Policy Post-Copenhagen

Artur Runge-MetzgerDirector Climate Change & Air

European Commission

Outline

COP15Copenhagen AccordWay forward

COP15 - The Stats

No of registered participants up to 50,0006 negotiating sessions, often in parallel

15th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC5th meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol10th Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments under

the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP 10) 8th session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term

Cooperative ActionSubsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice Subsidiary Body for Implementation

> 100 heads of state, most of EU and G20, including all BRIC

COP15 –Limits of the UNFCCC

processComplexity vs consensusUnder the LCA track it was not

possible to really discuss developing country actions

US did not engage on anything resembling Kyoto, keeping all options open to accommodate internal legislation

These dynamics only changed when Heads of State arrived, but time too limited to come in line with EU expectations

ALBA countries pursue own agenda and blocked final consensus

The Copenhagen Accord

Negotiated by around 30 countries during 24 hours

Heads of state negotiate line-by-line

Developing country delegations either did not send their political level, such as Sudan and Saudi Arabia, or tried to avoid having their Heads of State negotiate like China and India

Algeria Australia Bangladesh Brazil China Colombia Ethiopia Sweden European Commission Germany France Grenada India Indonesia

Japan Republic of Korea Lesotho Maldives Mexico Norway Russian Federation Saudi Arabia South Africa Spain Sudan UK US

The Copenhagen Accord Countries

Covering all UN regional groups, LDCs and the alliance of small island states:

Share of global CO2 emissions, 2006

Share of global GDP, 2006

Share of global population, 2006

The Copenhagen Accord I

Recognises the 2C objective but no timing for peaking nor 2050 ambition levels

Economy-wide emission reduction targets for developed countries and mitigation action by developing countries

Measurement, reporting, verification (MRV) for developed countries based on existing and new guidelines but no clear common accounting framework

MRV for developing countries: Supported actions MRV-ed internationally and included in

a registry Unsupported actions MRV-ed domestically and included

in national communications + inventory (2 yearly)

The Copenhagen Accord II

Commitment by developed countries to provide new and additional resources approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 - 2012

Committed goal to mobilise USD 100 billion dollars by 2020 Variety of sources, both public and private, bilateral and

multilateral, including alternative sources of finance. Establishment of a Copenhagen Green Climate Fund High Level Panel will be established to study the contribution

of the potential sources of revenue Weak language on (carbon) market

The Copenhagen Accord III

Register to record supported actions and the support itself

Mechanism for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and other uses (not specified);

Technology Mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer (not specified);

Establish a comprehensive adaptation programme including international support

A review to be completed by 2015, with a reference to exploring pathways to remain below 1.5° C temperature increase.

Appendix to the Accord –Developed countries

As of 5 February 94 parties have associated themselves with the accord or submitted actions in its appendix

EU (-20% to -30% vs 1990), Australia (-5% to -25% vs 2000) and Norway (- 30% to -40% vs 1990) have unconditional low end targets and conditional high end targets.

US (-17% vs 2005) conditiona on enactment domestic legislation

Canadian target is a retreat from their offer under the Kyoto Protocol. -17% vs 2005 instead of -20% vs 2006 (reversal of the ambition compared to 1990 from -3% to +3%)

Japanese -25% vs 1990 conditional on a fair global agreement

Russia’s (-15% to -25% vs 1990) target also refers to a conditionality linked to how it can use LULUCF

Appendix to the Accord –Developing countries

Basic countries have communicated their actions in the context of

UNFCCC, not the Copenhagen Accord.

BASIC refers explicitly (S-Africa) or implicitly (Art 4.7, Art 12.4) to

support, unclear extent of conditionality for individual actions.

Actions similar to what was known before COP15. Brazil being

most detailed. China not only CO2 intensity target but also Non

Fossil fuel and LULUCF target.

Singapore (-16%) and South Korea (-30%) introduced a target but

expressed to baseline, thus remains flexible concept

Marshall Islands have introduced target of -40% compared to a

base year (2009) but conditional on support.

Way forward -Time line of UN process

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Established 2005, COP 11, Montreal 10 sessions , 15 meetings

AWG KP

No text agreed at COP 15

Established 2007, COP 13, Bali

8 sessions, 10 meetings

AWG LCA

No text agreed at COP 15

CopenhagenAccord

Text agreed at COP 15 but not unanimous

Text agreed Not Unanimous

1 session 1 meeting

?

Way forward –Negotiations plus Action

Now Accord should be key to reinvigorate the process under the AWGs in

order to reach a legally binding agreement: Copenhagen accord was not adopted by the COP, only noted

(Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Cuba and to a lesser extent Tuvalu blocked)

Accord is not legally binding nor refers to a process towards it.

Accord refers several times to follow up COP decisions and draft AWG LCA and AWG KP texts forwarded to Mexico

BASIC seems to see it now as a mere political agreement

In parallel, the Accord requires swift implementation. Majority of countries wants to act now on climate change.

Smart use of fast-start finance can build capacity and create confidence in ramping up action.

Way forward –Factors of success in

2010 EU preference for a single legally binding outcome: By Mexico?

Simple amending Annex B of Kyoto Protocol is not an option Completely undermines environmental integrity of 2020 target (LULUCF, surplus

AAUs)

No level playing field between EU and US and other countries

Positioning of the ALBA countries If consensus under the COP continues to be problematic, the Accord might stimulate

Parties in the near future to take action and collaborate

COP could facilitate implementation of the Accord under Art 7(2)(c)

Outcome US legislative debate

Other informal processes could remain important, e.g. G20, G8, Major Economies Forum

Way forward –What should the EU do?

Leadership starts at home Implement EU energy and climate package Link climate change to EU2020 strategy for sustainable growth,

innovation and jobs, i.e. focus on transport, de-carbonisation of power sector, budget and CAP review, adaptation.

Develop a low carbon development strategy with a vision of reducing emissions by 80-95% by 2050 and set milestones 2020/2030.

Reaching out internationally Implement the Copenhagen Accord: EU will have to act swift on fast

start finance and be transparent on how it will deliver the EU pledge of € 2.4 billion yearly over the period 2010-2012

Develop international carbon market: design and test sectoral crediting Mechanism. Amended ETS gives us the tools to do so.

No alternative to the UN process: EU is ready to continue to negotiate

More information on EU climate policy:http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/home_en.htm