Transcript Document

OPERATIONALISING AN EQUITY
REFERENCE FRAMEWORK IN THE
CLIMATE CHANGE REGIME: Legal and
technical perspectives1
BELGIAN - SWEDISH WORKSHOP ON EQUITY
Xolisa Ngwadla
19 May 2014
Use slideshow to hear the sound
α
Reconcile science imperatives with national circumstances, in light of
inadequacy of a purely science or national circumstances driven
approach for a global agreement
α
Operationalises equity beyond the definition conundrum,
recognising importance of a perception of fairness for cooperative
action, as well as convergence around its importance
α
Brings adaptation to the center of global climate policy dialogue,
recognising that inadequate global mitigation efforts increases
adaptation costs and needs
α
Focusses the differentiation discourse on ambition rather than
structure, recognising that Convention structure provides for
differentiation types of commitments Parties take
1. Rationale of the ERF
α
Determination of the required global effort to meet the longterm goal agreed in paragraph 4 of Decision 1/CP.16,
comprising of the required mitigation and adaptation effort,
including the associated finance and technology needs
α
Determination of relative fair efforts by Parties based on their
historical responsibility, current capability, and development
needs through an ensemble of metrics for each dimension of
contribution, culminating in a range of relative contribution
by each Party towards the global effort
α
An ex ante process (1/CP.19) by which intended nationally
determined contributions are assessed for their adequacy
against the required global effort (science imperative), and
fairness (equity imperatives)
2. Elements of a principle-based reference
framework
α
The Warsaw decision (1/CP.19) provides adequate flexibility for the
inclusion of an ERF in the 2015 Agreement, based on the following,
α the use of the word ‘intended’ suggests that the intended
contribution may not be the eventual contribution inscribed in
the 2015 agreement
α the term ‘nationally-determined,’ endorses a bottom-up or
facilitative approach, leaving the framing of contributions at least
in the first instance solely to nations
α the term ‘contributions’ leaves their nature open, - whether
commitments, actions, or commitments for some and actions for
others, the text leaves the legal form of the contributions
unresolved
α the
term ‘contributions’ is not qualified by ‘mitigation,’
contributions could be in relation to adaptation, finance,
technology transfer or capacity building
3. The UNFCC context
α
α
α
α
The design of the process by which the ERF is anchored could take
several forms, with pros and cons, a hybrid approach showing
potential
Expert process, such as an IPCC workshop, whose outcomes are
presented to SBI/SBSTA, or further into ADP through the SED - may
not garner political buy-in
Diplomatic process, multilateral consultation on intended nationally
determined contributions, with no structured expert input - may not
garner the necessary legitimacy
Hybrid approach, comprising of
α
α
an expert phase convened by the IPCC or SBSTA or the ADP, identify and
synthesise outputs from metrics gleaned from Party submissions,
computing an envelope of responsibility against which contributions are
assessed
A diplomatic phase where a multilateral consultation emerging from the
expert phase would provide a platform for Parties to justify their
contributions against benchmarks, based on science, equity and national
circumstances
4. The ERF as part of an objective
multilateral consultative process
Architectural options
Description
As an integral element of the
Agreement
Stand-alone provision of the agreement defining its role and the
two-phase consultative process; accepted in toto, could provide
language for discretionary application
As an optional element of the
Agreement
Stand-alone provision of the agreement and the two-phase
consultative process; applicable to parties who consent through
opt-in and opt-out provisions; severable from the ‘core deal’
As a technical process informing
the Agreement
Agreement provide for a technical process where the CoP/CMP
can request an IPCC workshop/report, to be presented to
SBI/SBSTA; could be a SBSTA/SBI item; could be part of the
SED that informs the ADP; Independent technical process
outside the ADP, yet informing its work
As an external process
External process established through a declaration, resolution
by a subset of Parties at HoS or Ministerial level, with
institutional and financial arrangements to support the ERF
process; declaration could establish the process hosted by
representative civil society-academia to put pressure on the
system
5. Architectural options as part of the
2015 Agreement
GHG stabilisation
pathways and
concentrations
Finance and technology
requirements to address
the mitigationadaptation challenge
α
The generic approach to both
understanding the required
global effort
include, (a)
temperature scenario - GHG
stabilisation
scenario
(b)
adaptation/mitigation options
(c) Finance and technology
needs
α
If average abatement costs are
set at $35/ton (based on IPCC,
2007
sustained
$20-50);
including adaptation costs
(WorldBank 2010; CSIR, 2013)
the required global effort can
be agreed
Temperature scenarios
consistent with
pathways and
concentration
Required mitigation
and adaptation
consistent with
temperature scenarios
4. Options for the expert technical
assessment (Required global effort)

For each of the responsibility dimensions, historical responsibility, current
capability, development needs,



3 or more metrics are used to rank different countries, from which based on
equal weighting a range of responsibility showing a median, 25th, 75th percentiles
is computed; the minimum and maximum scores are noted, as ‘whiskers’ on a
boxplot
The results from the 3 dimensions are further processed to reflect the median,
25th and 75th percentiles, for the values obtained in the first step, with min/max
being reflected
The outputs are in a boxplot format which would show an ‘envelope’ of
responsibility, without being prescriptive, presented as either a percentage
responsibility to the required effort OR x-times relative to another Party OR
index with a Party,
4. Options for the expert technical
assessment (Relative Fair Efforts metrics)


Historical responsibility (Cumulative emissions since 1960 excl. LULUCF; Cumulative
emissions since 1990 excl LULUCF; Emissions per capita as of 2010) Current capability (GDP
per capita PPP 1980-2010; GDP per capita PPP 1990-2010; GCF as % GDP as of 2010);
Development needs (HDI 2010; HDI non-metric dimension 2010; Electrification rate)
Results presented as absolute percentage responsibility of the required global effort (left) and as
a % of the USA to facilitate comparison
4. Options for the expert technical
assessment (Required Fair Effort)

The process to date has adequate space for the integration of an assessment for
adequacy and fairness framework in the 2015 Agreement, building on decision
1/CP.19

The ERF, is highly adaptable - on substantive assessment inputs, legal form, and
architectural options - and it may thus prove to be an invaluable framework in a
highly contested environment with divergent views

There are however open questions such as,


what would constitute an optimal and minimum contribution per contribution type by
Parties in line with their treaty obligations that have a likely chance of approximating the
required global effort
how the ERF can interface with the existing institutional architecture of the Convention
without duplication, whilst at the same time bringing coherence to the regime
4. Conclusions
END