Transcript Africa Strategy in the negotiations

Africa Strategy in the UN climate
negotiations
Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu
Democratic Republic of Congo
ECBI Regional Capacity Building Workshop for UNFCCC
negotiators: West Africa
5th July 2010, Dakar, Sénégal
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Africa Strategy in the negotiations
Scientific and economic context
Political context
Negotiations under the AWG-KP
Negotiations under the AWG-LCA
Process of negotiations
Prospects for Cancún and beyond
Conclusion
Africa Strategy in the negotiations
• Ensure African position is based on the latest scientific
and economic analysis
• Confirm African Common Negotiating Position and
reiterate commitment to Bali Roadmap and to
continuation of Kyoto Protocol
• For the 42 African countries that have associated with
the Copenhagen Accord, ensure it serves as a “floor” not
a “ceiling” to ambition
• Seek support for African science-based position at
Ministerial and Head of State level, as appropriate
• Identify democratic and transparent modalities for
representation of African position at all levels, including
during COP16 high-level segment
Scientific and economic context
• According to the IPCC
– “Africa is one of the most vulnerable continents to climate
change…
– All of Africa is very likely to warm during this century. The warming
is very likely to be larger than global, annual mean warming
throughout the continent and in all seasons…
– In all four regions and in all seasons, the median temperature
increase lies … roughly 1.5 times the global mean response.”
• Further warming risks
– Reduction in crop yields in some countries of as much as 50% by
2020
– Increased water stress for 75-250 million people by 2020s and 350600 million by 2050s
– Cost of adaptation to sea-level rise of at least 5-10% of GDP
• Recent analysis suggests climate change is progressing faster than
predicted by IPCC and the economic costs may be higher
• Africa’s position must be based on the latest scientific and economic
analysis
Political context
• Parties agreed to implement the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol
through the two-tracks of the Bali Roadmap
– Kyoto Protocol: A second commitment period for Annex I
commencing 2013 through the AWG-KP
– Convention: Ensure the “full, effective and sustained
implementation of the Convention” through the AWG-LCA
• Some Annex I countries are now seeking to end (not implement) Kyoto
Protocol and to reinterpret the Convention
• They propose a “pledge-based” approach building on Copenhagen
Accord that departs from the Convention, Kyoto Protocol and Bali
Roadmap
• According to analysis of the Copenhagen Accord
– Annex I emissions could increase by up to 6% by 2020 from 1990
levels
– 50% chance warming will exceed 3 degrees C
• These are major developments in the negotiations which require a
sophisticated and coordinated response by African countries
Kyoto Protocol: AWG-KP
•
•
•
•
•
AWG-KP is addressing
– Further commitments for Annex I Parties after 2012
– Other issues (land-use, surplus allowances, methodologies etc)
Agreement to pursue a “top-down” not a “pledge-based” approach to
Annex I mitigation commitment in aggregate
African common position calls for Annex I reductions of 40% from 1990
levels (African Group called for 45% in Copenhagen)
Annex I are proposing a “pledge-based” approach. Current pledges by
Annex I Parties to the Kyoto Protocol would yield:
– A 10-14% reduction below 1990 levels by 2017
– A 4-8% increase above 1990 levels by 2017 with loopholes (land-use
and surplus allowances)
– Even higher domestic emissions through use of markets and
“offsetting”
A number of Annex I Parties are now saying they will not take a second
commitment period favoring a “bottom up” approach under the
Copenhagen Accord
Kyoto Protocol: AWG-KP
• Strategic priorities
– Increase scale of Annex I ambition
– Close land-use loopholes
– Limit surplus allowances
– Limit role for markets
– Demand transparency on level of domestic reductions
– Limit “migration” of KP issues to AWG-LCA
– Confirm 2017 commitment period
– Secure common G77 and China position on Annex I reductions
– Confirm Cancún as agreed deadline for conclusion of AWG-KP
– Build support with European and other partners to save KP
Convention: AWG-LCA
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Shared vision
Adaptation
Mitigation
Forests
Technology
Finance
Revised “Chair’s text to facilitate negotiations”
Shared vision
“A shared vision for long-term cooperative action, including a longterm global goal for emission reductions, to achieve the ultimate
objective of the Convention…”
•
•
•
•
AWG-LCA Chair’s revised text is improved in structure but still fails to
include key proposals by G77 and China and African Group
In Bonn, G77 and China noted a range of revisions to preamble and to
shared vision text
Shared vision must be sufficient to keep Africa safe, share burdens fairly,
and guarantee the means required to develop and adapt to climate change
Strategic priorities
– Review the shared vision to ensure an equitable approach
– Adjust preamble to reflect key ideas put forward by G77 and African
Group
– Include a shared vision and global goal for each Bali building block
– Include language requiring an equitable burden sharing paradigm
– Ensure any review covers adequacy of Annex I commitments, financing
and compliance
Adaptation
“Enhancing action on adaptation”
•
•
•
•
Parties had limited opportunities to discuss adaptation in Bonn
Considerable differences remain
– Developing countries support creation of a work-programme, Adaptation
Committee, Convention Adaptation Fund and a mechanism to address loss
and damage
– Many developed countries support existing mechanisms and continue to
oppose new institutions including a mechanism to address loss and damage
Some G77 members expressed concern over proposed new “most vulnerable
country” category; and continued differences remain on “response measures”
Strategic priorities
– Ensure continued focus on Africa
– Revise estimates of costs, loss and damage based on most recent
information
– Increase pressure for agreement on institutional proposals
– Ensure simplified access for adaptation financing, and that funds are new
and additional
– Ensure consideration of vulnerable groups and communities, gendersensitivity, ecosystems and traditional knowledge
Mitigation
“Enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change”
•
•
•
•
Attempts by many developed countries to end Kyoto Protocol and move to
“pledge based” approach building on the Copenhagen Accord under AWG-LCA
In AWG-LCA, some Annex I countries remain opposed to
• Aggregate target for Annex I Parties
• Negotiation on their individual targets
• Comparability of efforts (scale, legal form, MRV, compliance)
• International disciplines on how targets are achieved
• Effective compliance measures
In parallel, they propose strong new MRV and “ICA” provisions for developing
countries
Strategic priorities
– Maintain the “firewall” between AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, and between
paragraphs 1(b)(i) and (ii) of Bali Action Plan
– Focus AWG-LCA discussion on comparability of efforts for Annex I Parties
that are not Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (i.e. the United States)
– Focus AWG-KP discussions on other Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol
– Elaborate more detailed solution for the United States under the AWG-LCA
Forests
“Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions
from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of
conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest
carbon stocks in developing countries”
•
•
•
•
•
•
Relatively limited discussion of forests in Bonn (the Chair’s revised text
includes only two paragraphs)
Annex I countries continue to support market-based sources of financing
Some developing countries support markets, while others support a fundbased approach
Many countries noted importance of situating external processes (such as
Paris-Oslo process) under UNFCCC once mechanism established
Congo Basin countries noted need for balance in rules for REDD-plus and
LULUCF
Strategic priorities
– Ensure balance between rules for REDD-plus and LULUCF
– Review implications for market-based and fund-based financing
– Ensure discussions of REDD move in parallel with other issues
Technology
“Enhanced action on technology development and transfer to support
action on mitigation and adaptation”
•
•
•
Parties differed over the role of an enhanced Technology Mechanism, including a
Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and Climate Technology Center and
Network (CTCN)
– Developed countries want the TEC and CTCN to have equal status;
developing countries want a clear hierarchy with the CTCN reporting to the
TEC
– Developed countries want the TEC and CTCN to report to SBSTA; developing
countries want the TEC to function as a subsidiary body reporting to the COP
Discussions in Bonn did not adequately address issues of intellectual property
rights, endogenous capacities and technologies, or sectoral approaches to
technology transfer (Article 4.1(c))
Strategic priorities
– Reinforce proposals for the structure of the technology mechanism
– Increase focus on affordable access to technologies (including by removing
IPR barriers)
– Increase focus on enhancing endogenous technologies and capacities
– Reinstate Article 4.1(c) discussions to focus on technology transfer in all
sectors
Finance
“Enhanced action on the provision of financial resources and investment to
support action on mitigation and adaptation and technology cooperation”
•
•
•
•
Developing countries confirmed
– The need for a financial architecture including: 1) Finance Board accountable to
the COP; 2) Funds as operating entities under supervision of Finance Board; and
3) Committee to MRV support
– At least 1.5% of Annex I GNP (around $600 billion) is required. China noted $100
billion by 2020 is inadequate
– That the recording mechanism for mitigation actions and support should be
linked appropriately and guarantee access to funds
Many developed countries continue to favor a decentralized approach stressing
existing institutions (e.g. the World Bank) and the need for country driven approaches
Some developing countries expressed concerns over use of the term “Copenhagen
Green Fund” as deriving from the Copenhagen Accord, and the use of financing for
coercive political purposes
Strategic priorities
– Review financing architecture in light of G77 and China and African proposal/texts
– Reiterate African Group’s demands for financing based on figures agreed in
Copenhagen
– Provide further evidence of needs for financing (both for mitigation and
adaptation/damage)
Process of negotiations
•
•
•
•
•
The SBI discussed arrangements for intergovernmental meetings, including
controversial proposals to hold a high-level meeting before Cancún and extend
the high-level segment of Cancún beyond the usual period
Caution was expressed by a number of developing countries on bases
including:
– Additional time should be given to meetings among negotiators
– Complex technical issues should be addressed by experts
– Discussions should remain open and inclusive
– Ministerial meetings are not favored if funds are unavailable
– Ministerial meetings are convened when negotiators have prepared
something and not before
This in part reflected concerns over the handling of the Copenhagen climate
meeting, including the exclusive process leading to the Copenhagen Accord
It was ultimately agreed in the SBI that “the bureau and incoming presidency
[are] to make arrangements for the organization of the high-level segment”
The outcome is therefore a high-level meeting as part of COP 16, with no
ministerial-level meeting mandated under the UNFCCC between now and
Cancún
Prospects for Cancún and beyond
• Some Annex I countries and UNFCCC Secretariat have
downscaled expectations for Cancún
• Some Parties are calling for a partial outcome rather than the
comprehensive outcome envisaged at Copenhagen
• Further meetings are scheduled for:
– 2-6 August in Bonn, Germany
– [ ] October in China
• African Group needs to balance ambition with realism (while
maintaining public pressure for the fair and comprehensive
outcomes required to keep Africa safe)
• There is a realistic prospect of maintaining the two tracks of
negotiations (i.e. KP and LCA) beyond Cancún, and securing a
set of decisions under LCA
• Outcomes under both tracks must be balanced and establish a
favorable trajectory for negotiations in 2011
Conclusion
• Reiterate commitment to Bali Roadmap and
continuation of Kyoto Protocol
• State clearly support for a science-based and principled
approach, not a “pledge-based” approach
• Reinstate African science-based demands in each area
of negotiations (AWG-KP and AWG-LCA)
• For countries that have associated with the
Copenhagen Accord, ensure it serves as a “floor” not a
“ceiling” to ambition
• Ensure democratic and transparent representation of
African position at all levels, including high-level
segment in Cancún