Transcript ASSESSMENT OF THE OUTCOME OF THE UNFCCC COP15

ASSESSMENT OF THE OUTCOME OF
THE UNFCCC COP15 & CMP5, HELD
IN COPENHAGEN, DEC 2009
09 March 2010
Background
• 2007 – international agreement to conclude
negotiation of new multi-lateral climate regime
beyond 2012 under the Convention and its’
Kyoto Protocol
• 2 Ad Hoc Working Groups – 1 under the
Convention & 1 under the Kyoto Protocol
• After 2 yrs of negotiations – still disagreement on
key questions
– How to share and reflect responsibility, commitment
and action among developed and developing
countries;
– How to verify and ensure compliance with respective
commitments and linked to this, the question of
– Who pays
SA Position for Copenhagen
• New binding climate change regime beyond 2012 must be
ambitious, fair, inclusive and effective, therefore must
– Be based on the principles of “equity and “common but differentiated
responsibilities” & therefore maintain the 2 tracks – Convention &
Kyoto
– prioritise both mitigation of GHG emissions and the adaptation to
climate change impacts equally
– balance both climate and development imperatives
– equitably share the limited remaining carbon space
• And therefore must specifically provide for
– Developed country – ambitious binding economy wide emission
reduction commitment under the KP (USA under the Convention)
– Developing country – mitigation action recognised & MRV’ed
– Comprehensive international adaptation programme
– Both adaptation & mitigation action by developing countries supported
by finance, technology & capacity building – MRV’ed
– An effective mechanism/means to address response measures
Copenhagen process
• Fundamental disagreements among blocks
– Developed country efforts to “kill Kyoto”
– The legal nature of the Convention outcome
– How to give effect to the principles of “equity & “common but
differentiated responsibilities” – sharing the carbon space,
developed country ambition & global goal
– How to address adaptation & response measures
– How to address finance & technology
• Evident that agreement would be difficult – many Danish
COP President interventions, which
– Were non-inclusive
– Created distrust & extensive negotiation of process
– Final days – convened 28 heads of state – to formulate a political
agreement – the Copenhagen Accord
– Due to process issues – Accord not adopted as a COP decision.
Noted
Copenhagen Outcome
• Decisions under the Convention to
– Continue AWG-LCA negotiation
– Some progress on streamlining LCA text – but still
disagreements (as above)
– Decisions – Include Malta in A1; REDD methodology
issues; CGE; 4th review of financial mechanism; GEF
guidance; capacity building; admin & budget
– Note the Copenhagen Accord
• Decisions under Kyoto
– Continue AWG-KP negotiation
– Some progress on streamlining LCA text – but still
disagreement on “killing Kyoto”
– Decisions – Guidance to CDM & ETS; Adaptation
Fund; Compliance Committee; Capacity building;
admin & budget
Copenhagen Accord
• The accord only noted – not agreed or adopted
• Accord represents political agreement among 28 Heads of
State – drawn from regional groups – but excludes ALBA
• Political Agreement on some major elements
– mechanism to record developed country economy-wide binding
emission reduction targets, inclu the USA (submission due 31 Jan)
– mechanism to record developing country emission reduction actions
(submission due 31 Jan)
– New finance operating entity for both adaptation and mitigation ($10
bn per yr up to 2012 & $100 bn per yr by 2020)
– how to internationally measure, report and verify this action
– Positive incentive approach to deforestation
– a technology development and transfer mechanism
• Still major gaps and problems with Accord
– mixes adaptation and response measures
– continuation of Kyoto
– Low ambition of developed world & therefore equitable sharing of
carbon space & global goals
Political dynamics
• Developed countries
– united to “kill Kyoto” (except Norway)
– Divided on legal nature of their commitment – Umbrella
Gp = domestically binding; EU & Env Integrity Gp =
internationally binding
– Divided on level of ambition of mid & long term
commitment & global goal & how to share & recognise
early action
• Developing country- united on principles but divided
– Global goal (1,5 degree & 350ppm vs 2 degree & no ppm)
– Differentiation (BASIC & OECD developing countries) their
level of ambition & support for their uni-lateral action
– Adaptation & response measures (ALBA - historical debt)
– Financing REDD and REDD+ (fund vs market approach)
– Submission of mitigation action ito Accord
Interest Blocks
• Developed countries – all = international competitiveness &
bind large developing country emitters
– US, Japan, Australia & Canada – pathway approach (no early action);
domestically binding; no finance to BASIC, OPEC, OECD &
Singapore; pluri-lateral approach – no multi-lateral
– EU & Env Integrity Gp – bind US
– EIT’s – action similar to large developing country emitters
• Developing Countries
– Africa – still largely united (divisions = REDD; response measures;
SA ambition)
– SIDS – high global ambition; no linking of adaptation & response
measures; differentiation
– OPEC – low ambition; adaptation linked to response measures
– ALBA – similar to OPEC concerns but high ambition & historical debt
– LDC’s – similar to SID’s & Africa
– BASIC – no differentiation; technology & finance
Accord Follow Up
• Letters from UNFCCC secretariat and others in Jan re
31st Jan deadline for listing actions
• SA has listed an intention to reduce emissions by 34%
by 2020 and 42% by 2025 conditional on a legally
binding outcome in Mexico and provision of finance,
technology and capacity building.
• 55 other countries have listed. Many listings also
conditional eg US, Australia etc
• SA letter makes it clear that way forward is through
multi-lateral process and UNFCCC negotiations.
• Need to resolve trust deficit in order to move forward.
SA Deviation from Business As
Usual
• Figures calculated on basis of LTMS +
IRP + CTF Portfolio
• Presumes that with conditionalities met +
that all actions can be achieved
• Need to ensure alignment and integration
with other processes such as IPAP, IRP
as well as with climate policy process
• Detail also to be used to develop funding
proposals – test Accord commitments.
Thank you