Transcript Document

Common but differentiated
responsibilities in a post-2012 period:
different commitments and actions of the
countries
Julia Dobrolyubova
Expert on Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol
13, bld.2, 1st Volkonsky lane,
Moscow, 127473 Russia
phone/fax: +7 495 737 6448
e-mail: [email protected]
www.rusrec.ru
REC Workshop
5-6 March 2009
What is the RREC?
RREC is a part of regional environmental centres network acting in Central
and Eastern Europe, Moldova, Ukraine, Russia, Caucasus and Central Asia.
RREC was founded in 2000 by European Commission and Russian
Academy of Civil Service
Our mission
Promotion and introduction of advanced ideas, policies, standards and best
practices by providing information dialogue and implementing practical
actions to ensure environmental quality and sustainable development of
Russia.
Climate change and energy efficiency activities:
• assistance in implementation of the UNFCCC and Kyoto protocol provisions
(policy analysis, consulting, capacity-building, awareness-rising activities);
• Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP)
regional secretariat.
Current UNFCCC/KP differentiation of countries
Principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and
respective capabilities’ of countries’
Annex I – OECD member countries in 1992 + countries with
Economies in Transition - 40 countries
Annex II – AI Parties with additional commitments to provide finance
and facilitate transfer of technology to developing
countries – 24 countries
non-Annex I – countries not included in Annex I (developing
countries)
Annex B – AI Parties with quantified emission limitation or reduction
objectives under the Kyoto Protocol (except Belarus,
Turkey and the USA)
Countries with Economy in Transition – 14 countries
Least Developed Countries – 49 countries
Current UNFCCC/KP differentiation of countries
• level of economic development of countries in early 1990s
as a basis
• auto-identification of the Parties (either directly or through
membership in a political/economic organization – OECD,
EC, etc.) -> differentiation was not based on common and
objective criteria
• reflects 1992 realities -> outdated
• inefficient procedure for changing status by a Party
• non-Annex I major emitters do not have mitigation
commitments
Bali Action Plan (BAP)
The Bali Action Plan (BAP) was adopted at COP-13 (Bali-2007) and is
aimed at the adoption at COP-15 (Copenhagen-2009) of an agreement
to enable “full, effective and sustained implementation” of the UNFCCC
up to and beyond 2012.
Para 1b of the BAP on mitigation calls for:
(i) Measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate
mitigation commitments or actions, including quantified emission
limitation and reduction objectives, by all developed country
Parties, while ensuring the comparability of efforts among them,
taking into account differences in their national circumstances;
(ii) Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country
Parties in the context of sustainable development, supported and
enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, in a
measurable, reportable and verifiable manner.
New differentiation of countries
Basic principles:
• common approach
• new objective criterion/criteria
• differentiation based on the national circumstances of countries
• update is necessary according to current socio-economic
situation (South Korea, Mexico are OECD member-states, but are not in AI,
Malta is a EU member-state, but non-AI Party)
• differentiated commitments and actions relevant to status of a
country
• progressively greater flexibility in the types of mitigation actions
as countries go down the differentiation scale
• easy procedure for changing status by a country
New differentiation of countries
The target is to ensure:
• broader participation of countries in global efforts to achieve
the ultimate objective of the Convention (six of the top 15 major
emitters, namely Brazil, China, Iran, Korea, Mexico, and South Africa are nonAnnex I Parties and hence do not have binding mitigation commitments) ;
• fair burden sharing (46 developing Parties have a GDP per capita
higher than that of Ukraine, which is an Annex I Party)
• comparability of mitigation efforts
It will show to climate policy-makers:
• The appropriateness of different types of mitigation commitments or
actions in a post-2012 climate change regime; and
• The eligibility of different countries to various types of support for
mitigation actions.
Possible indicators for differentiation
Emissions-related indicators
• Total emissions
• Share of global emissions
• Cumulative emissions
• Projected emissions
• Emissions per capita
• Emissions per GDP
• Energy balance
• Export quota of carbonintense goods
Mitigation potential
Mitigation effort
Mitigation costs and benefits
•
•
•
•
•
•
Socio-economic indicators
GDP per capita
OECD membership
Stages of economic
development
Human Development Index
Climate vulnerability
indicator
Institutional/ Organisational
indicator
Emissions profile of different countries
Source: Jiahua Pan, Research Centre for Sustainable Development, Beijing China
Possible types of commitments
Absolute GHG emission reduction targets (in relation to a base year in
all economic sectors or for specific economic sector)
Relative GHG emission reduction targets (more flexible, e.g. energy or
carbon intensity of GDP, energy and carbon intensity per capita). Such
commitments may be applied either to the whole country or to specified
sectors
Commitments based on implementation of national policies and
measures (e.g. development of a national emissions trading system by
sector with further access to the external carbon market, introduction of a
tax or price policy to promote energy saving and deployment of new
technologies)
Commitments based on development, deployment and expansion of
low-carbon technologies
Possible differentiation of countries and
commitments/actions
Developed countries
Annex II Parties
(EU-15, USA, Japan,
Canada)
Economies in
Transition and other
Annex I Parties that
are not in Annex II
(Poland, Latvia, Russia,
Ukraine)
+ countries with similar
socio-economic
development level,
countries wishing to be
treated as AI Parties
Developing countries
Strong national and
international
commitments,
funds for mitigation
action, adaptation,
technical assistance
and technology
transfer
Newly industrialised
countries
National mitigation
commitments + limited
(South Korea, Singapore, international mitigation
Mexico)
commitments
Substantial national
and limited
international
mitigation
commitments
Other developing
countries
SD-PAMs, adaptation
actions
Least Developed
Countries
No commitments
Emerging
economies
(China, Brazil, Saudi
Arabia, South Africa)
(Bangladesh)
Sectoral mitigation
commitments (binding
emission reduction
targets per GDP, per
capita, etc.)
Negotiating a new differentiation of countries
The idea of the Parties’ regrouping is generally supported by
Annex I Parties:
USA – differentiation between the developing countries that are
major emitters and those that are not (US MEM process)
Canada – binding commitments to be extended to all major
emitters economies
EU – ‘fair and effective contributions’ to climate efforts by
economically advanced developing countries
Russia – ‘without a new sight on the differentiation of countries
it is impossible to develop further long-term cooperative
measures under the Convention’
+ Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, etc.
… but is strongly opposed by non-Annex I Parties.
Issues for further consideration
• differentiation criteria? (GDP or emissions per capita criteria keep
China, India and Indonesia off-board )
• procedure for differentiation (definition, list, auto-election
of countries)?
• platform for discussion: AWG-LCA, new track?
• graduation of some of non-Annex I Parties to the Annex I
list or additional lists?
• amendment to the UNFCCC or new differentiation within a
new agreement?
• Differentiation of actions rather than countries?
• Opposition of non-Annex I Parties – how to negotiate the
issue
Thank you for your attention!
Julia Dobrolyubova
Phone/Fax: +7-495-737-6448
e-mail: [email protected]