Transcript MP Success

MP SUCCESS
•
•
•
•
Phased out 95% of ozone-depleting
substances in 20 years
Placed the ozone layer on a path to
return to pre-1980 levels by 2065.
Reduced climate emissions by a net of
135 GtCO2-eq. from 1990 to 2010.
Delayed climate change by 7-12 years
(and by 35-41 years if voluntary and
domestic measures in the 1970s are
taken into account)
Reason for Success
• Positive feedback loop between
voluntary and regulatory actions
• Actions in progressive steps,
inspired by Scientific Assessment
and Technical and Economic
feasibility, updated periodically
Voluntary Action before MP
Initial Voluntary action due to
- Awareness, promoted by scientists, NGOs
and media, of the danger to the ozone
layer
- Signals from national regulations and
policies that old technologies are out and
those who are first with the new will win
Voluntary Actions Beyond Mandate of
MP Facilitated by
• Knowledge about the alternative
technologies and their feasibility through
Technology panel of MP and international
and national industrial Associations
• Availability, to developing countries, of
financial and technical help from the MLF
of MP to formulate country programmes
and policies to promote alternatives
• Involvement by stakeholders like
multinationals, militaries, major national
companies and NGOs
Regulatory Action-1
• International (MP) and national regulations
• Sent signal that ozone-safe technologies
will have market
• Strength of signal dependent on the extent
of width of consensus and depth of action
• In the beginning, width more important to
convince all one that the important players
of the world want ozone-safe technologies
Regulatory Action-2
‘Start and Strengthen’- ‘Best is the Enemy of
the Good’
• 1987 MP had mild measures to attract all.
• Strengthened 6 times, each time taking into
account special interests of countries. Every
time not the ideal solution but attracting many so
that actions started by all.
• The actions stimulated innovators- Resulted in
better products and proved wrong projections of
economic loss and bad products if ODS were
not used
• This reduced the resistance to deeper controls
Regulatory Action-3
Tough features of MP
• Adjustment- Once a control measure is in
place for an ODS, strengthening controls
for that ODS decided by MOP with a
prescribed majority and is binding on all
the Parties
• Trade controls with non-Parties- no trade
in ODS and no import of products with
ODS and with non-complying Parties- to
discourage ‘free-riders’
Regulatory Action -5
Assisted by TechTransfer, Multilateral Fund
• Tech transfer provided for in MP (no
guarantee), funded by the MLF
• Written indicative list of incremental costs
of developing countries to be met by MLF
• list covers costs of tech transfer, training
and incremental costs of equipment
• Though not in the list, MLF covers
National ozone units, awareness, Info,
preparation of policies and regulations
• Knowledge Networks of NOUs and regular
meetings along with developed countries
Unorthodox action by MOPs-MLF
• Finance preparation of country programs
for developing countries- setting time lines
for programs, many better than the
mandated ones
• Financing of developing countries started
in 1991, though control measures started
in 1999.
• Periodical replenishment of the MLF
calculated by TEAP objectively- approved
by Parties without much change
• TEAP recommendations based on country
programmes and targets
Unorthodox action by MOPs-MLF
Governance
• MLF administered by 14-member
Executive Committee, 7 each from
developing and developed, elected by
MOPs every year
• Chairmanship rotates between the groups
• MLF contributed by developed countries in
ratio of UN scales
• MLF focal point of assistance. Bilaterals
allowed to contribute up to 20% through
projects but need approval by ExCom
Unorthodox action by MPAssessment Panels
• Assessment panels reporting at least once
in 4 years. Parties could express opinions
but not change reports
• In practice, annual updating and reporting
• All Adjustments and amendments of MP
and tech decisions on the basis of reports.
• Parties appoint Panel members but
Members of sector Technical options
committees selected by the co-chairs of
the committees.
Regulation by MP
• Time bound control measures for all
countries
• Developing countries are G-77 but with
per-capita consumption less than some
limits
• Developing countries given grace time
• Compliance of developing countries
conditional on tech transfer and MLF
assistance
Some Good points of MP not taken
by Kyoto
• Adjustments and Trade controls with nonParties- to discourage ‘free-riders’
• Non-Compliance procedure with emphasis
on assistance, then cautions and with
tough action of suspension of rights
(including trade) if deliberate inaction.
Procedure binding every Party
• Governance and replenishment of MLF
• Independent, frequent technical advice
Post-2012 institutions for Climate
Change
• A restructured GEF on the lines of MLF with
mandate to promote voluntary action, in addition
to mandatory targets, help prepare Country
programmes with voluntary bench marks,
promote action by- MNCs, major national
companies, Military, Assist in awareness,
information, National climate units, Knowledge
networking, policies and regulations, access to
alternative technology,
• Sector wise expert (from Industry, Academia,
Government) technical committees,
independent in operation. Annual reporting
Many Ideas on Board for Kyoto.
Why post-2012? Do it Now
• Developed countries to continue their cuts.
• The voluntary commitments of developing
countries can be based on no-lose, non-binding
targets. Reduction of GHG emissions growth
rates, Sector efficiencies
• Long term targets might be detrimental. Cost
and potential of mitigation and the capacity of
countries to respond are uncertain. Either
unrealistically tough commitments or too soft
ones.
• Follow the MP principle of start and strengthen
periodically based on science and feasibility.
Many helpful factors for Immediate
Action
• Many mitigation measures, that yield a
good return to individuals and companies,
available
• These also lead to less dependence on
fossil fuels, access to advanced ways of
using energy sources, better air quality
(and thus health) and new market
opportunities for industry
• Climate Change easy to understand by
citizens