Transcript Presentation - Regional Policy Briefings

Date - Lieu
International climate negotiations:
new issues for African countries
Regional Development Briefing No.4
Ouagadougou, 1–2 November 2010
Celia Gautier,
Mission leader, Public Policy and International Relations, GRET
[email protected]
Plan
2
1) Introduction: Climate change and vulnerability in Africa
2) State of play of negotiations before Cancun (COP16)
1)
2)
3)
Cancun, year 1 after Copenhagen
From Copenhagen to Cancun
Cancun: getting negotiations back on track
3) The major negotiation issues for Africa
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Emission reductions in the North and reduction actions in the
South
REDD+
Finance (fast start and long term)
Adaptation
The inclusion of agriculture in the countries of the South
Transfer of technologies
Capacity reinforcement
3
Introduction
The effects of climate change
in Africa
4
 One of the most vulnerable continents
 Yet responsible for only 4% of world greenhouse gas emissions
(GHGEs) => climate justice
 Major destructive effects (Giec 2007, Boko et al. 2007, Collier et al.
2008, Müller 2009, UNCCD et al. 2009)




Greater frequency of extreme climate events, increased variability
Lower agricultural yield
Increased risk of food insecurity
Increase in the number of people in danger of water stress (reduced availability
of water resources)
 Increased risk of exposure to malaria
 Rising sea levels => coastal erosion, severe impact on mangroves and fishing
resources and increased risk of flooding
 Deforestation, degradation of woodlands
 Agriculture in Africa: coping with the challenges of climate change
and food security
5
Source:
Pnud 2005
6
International negotiations
before the Cancun conference
Cancun:
Year 1 after Copenhagen
7
 Copenhagen agreement
 Political declaration, not legally binding, outside of the United
Nations Framework Agreement on Climate (UNFAC)
 Bottom-up approach: Gap between the recommendations of
science (from -25% to -40% by 2020) and the reduction
announcements of the developed countries: +3°C instead of +2°C
 Promises of finance by the developed countries:
 30 billion $US for fast start finance over 2010–2012, particularly for the most
vulnerable countries.
 Then 100 billion $US by 2020
 Signed by the African countries, despite promises of finance lower
than the demands of the African Group in Copenhagen
From Copenhagen (COP15)
to Cancun (COP16)
8
 Heavy going negotiations, with some incremental progress
at the Tianjin session (early October)
 … but refusing to come to a worldwide, fair, ambitious and legally
binding agreement in Cancun.
 Legal format of future agreement still uncertain:
 Majority of countries: a binding world-wide agreement in the
framework of the Convention (AWG-LCA)
 But also a second commitment period in the framework of the
Kyoto Protocol. Guarantee for Highly Indebted Countries. EU now
prepared to consider a 2nd commitment period of the Protocol
(without the USA) if worldwide agreement continues to be the end
goal
 Issue: to emerge from the impasse on the legal format of the future
agreement
Cancun: putting the
negotiations back on track
9
 Expectations for Cancun considerably reduced in
comparison with Copenhagen:
 restoring trust between the countries, sending a positive signal
 Adopting a “balanced package” of decisions
 The essential components of a “balanced package”
 Decisions by the COP on emissions reduction, adaptation, funding, technology,
and capacity upgrading
 A declaration on the end goal of a legally-binding agreement
 A working plan to achieve that objective
 A decision by COP/MOP to underline the pursuit of the Kyoto Protocol on a
second commitment period
 But how is balance to be achieved?
 The countries must discuss their vision of the “package” and the
ways in which it balances the various issues.
African position in Cancun
10
 In Copenhagen: a common position for Africa
 In Cancun, it should not seek to distinguish itself from the
Copenhagen position (president of the CAU)
 … with a lower aim: to achieve the sector-focused objectives in
Cancun before the final stage of COP17 in South Africa which
should herald an agreement.
11
The priority negotiation issues
for the African countries
Emissions reduction
12
 Reduction of emissions in the developed countries: 75
countries committed to cut their GHG emissions by 2020
 Promises not enough to stay below the 2°C bar
 Unsatisfactory signal sent to the developing countries
 The developing countries also need an assurance that these
promises will be kept through national policies and plans (e.g. the
case of the United States)
 Africa Group: the approach adopted by the Convention should
raise the ambitions of the countries listed in Attachment I which do
not form part of the Kyoto protocol
 NAMAs:
 MRV of the actions funded by the countries of the North
 MRV of funding
REDD+ In Africa
 Deforestation: 12–17% of emissions
 Copenhagen Accord
13
 REDD+ important: providing motivation for action and mobilising
resources
 France and the UK: 20% of up-front funding for REDD+
 More intensive discussions before signing the accord
 Some points need clarification (safeguards)
 Issues
 MRV
 Strengthening capacities
 Decision possible at COP16 but its substance depends on
progress being made in other areas (funding)
 A decision at COP if decisions are taken on other
measures
 Parallel initiatives and discussions:
 E.g.: The REDD+, UN-REDD, FCPF partnership
Fast start funding (1)
 Essential for:
14
 re-establishing a climate of trust after the Copenhagen debacle
 laying the foundations for the financial climate architecture post2012.
 Debate: recognition of the value of the Copenhagen Accord
by the HICs  payment of finance by the developed
countries

Is a decision from the COP on fast starts in Cancun necessary so
that everybody recognises them and payments are actually made?
Additionality in relation to the aims of Public Development
Aid
 In reality: very little extra new money, much APD recycling
 Climate change is giving rise to new needs! Development is likely
to be +40% more expensive (Fankhauser & Schmidt-Traub, 2010)
 EU, differing definitions of additionality!
Fast start funding (2)
 Priority use in the poorest and most vulnerable countries
(e.g. Copenhagen Accord)
15
 PANA: existing finance (181 million $) insufficient to cover
implementation (2 billion $)
 However, use seems greatest in the emerging and mid-level
income countries
 A very small proportion currently returned to Africa
 A balance between emissions reduction / adaptation
 Copenhagen Accord: “balanced” allocation
 In reality, the developed countries are more inclined to fund
emissions reduction (70% for the EU) than adaptation
 In the most at-risk countries:
 Give public funding precedence over private funding
 Give gifts precedence over loans:
 Very few countries have declared the loans/gifts split
 Loans are seldom used to support adaptation and capacity strengthening
actions
Fast start funding (3)
16
 Funding governance: ensure a balance between donor
countries and receiver countries
 E.g.: Fund for the Adaptation of the Kyoto Protocol
 Allocation of funds to national bodies rather than international
agencies
 Direct, full and effective participation of the communities
responsible for the governance of the funds
 Crucial need for transparency (e.g. EU Council)
 regarding sources, distribution channels, disbursements,
geographical distribution, the gifts/loans proportions, activities
funded
 Authorise the COP (the Climate Conventions decision-making
body) to define common criteria on the use and accounting of fast
start funding and prepare annual contribution analysis reports?
Long-term funding
17
 Africa will need finance over a longer period of time than
other regions
 Copenhagen Accord: creation of a “Green Fund”
containing $100 billion by 2020
 Signed by the African countries as a minimum, but not to
prejudice the actual sum they require
 Africa Group and LDC Group:
 1.5% of the GDP of the developed countries by 2020, i.e. around
$ 600 billion per year (2008 GDP)
 Total needs as net North-South transfers (UNFCCC):
$425 billion per year by 2030
 In Cancun: probable decision by the COP
to create the Fund, while the terms and conditions
governing its implementation will still require definition.
Adaptation (1)
18
 Adaptation of agriculture in Africa essential, both in terms
of urgent actions and in-depth transformations in the longer
term
 Falling productivity, falling income, rising instability => increased
vulnerability, risk of increased food and nutritional insecurity
 Role of family farms => They must be able to develop while
remaining aware of the permanent need for adaptation
 Estimated cost of agricultural adaptation in the developing
countries: $2.5–2.6 billion per year between 2010 and 2050 (World
Bank)
 Exhaustive text in Copenhagen
 Africa Group and other countries call for the establishment
of a committee on adaptation
 Provision of technical support for the implementation of adaptation
actions
Adaptation (2)
 Funding issues:
19




Fund the PANAs (urgent actions)
Funding to be multi-year, stable and reliable in the longer term
Gifts for the most part, not loans
Public money in the main, not via the carbon market
 Coordinate existing efforts and multiply them
 Initiatives before and after the Copenhagen debacle, often on a
“project” basis
 Don’t expect negotiation, but be proactive
 Need for a coordinating role for the UNFCCC
 Regarding the institutional tool: consensus on the need to
reinforce and set up national institutions on adaptation
 Monitor funding and actions implemented, or just funding to
identity the lacunae?
Including developing country
agriculture (1)
20
 A major issue in terms of adaptation
 96% of African agriculture is rain-dependent
 Also an issue in terms of reduction
 13.5% of global GHG emissions in 2004 (Giec)  potentiel to
reduce this to 5 to 6 gigatonnes of CO2eq by 2030
 But excludes negotiations until mid-2009
 A new approach, uncertainties
 Incorporated into the discussions in the framework of the
Convention in November 2009
 Significant progress in Copenhagen, no decision by the COP
 Negotiation issue:
 Include agriculture in the countries of the South in a worldwide
agreement on climate to facilitate a change in agrarian systems to
a “climate smart” agriculture which takes account of agricultural
system diversity.
Including developing country
agriculture(2)
21
 As with other matters, a COP decision
depends on the global “package”
 If agriculture is included, “climate” funding
must take account of the specific features
of agriculture in the developing countries
 Carbon market: risks. Rather: find out
more about the possibility of reduction,
reinforce, develop and publicise
techniques available to family farming via
public funding.
Technology transfer
 In Copenhagen:
22
 Intensive negotiations, close to a decision to set up a mechanism
for technology (with an executive committee and a Technology
Centre)
 Copenhagen Accord: importance of technology recognised and
creation of a Mechanism, with no further detail on implementation
 Decision in Cancun by the COP to set up a technology
mechanism?
 Possible, but it depends on other matters (funding, for example)
 Matters pending:
 Links between a technology mechanism – finance mechanism (since negotiated
separately)
 Intellectual property rights
 How to tackle non-financial aspects (adequate governance)? How to tackle the
capacity reinforcement issues?
 Emissions reduction technology / adaptation technologies
Capacity reinforcement
23
 Essential for the most at-risk countries and crucial to free
up negotiations
 Requests lodged by certain countries (LDCs, Africa Group)
to create a framework devoted to capacity reinforcement with
special funding.
 Discussions in Tianjin:
 Institutional tool (new institutions?)
 Performance indicators: not yet developed, project approach
preferred
 Re: the Declaration by the Forum for the Development of
Africa (Addis-Ababa 10–15 October 2010)
 Probable mention of capacity reinforcement at Cancun (in
an entirely separate decision?)
Conclusion
24
 Questions about the effectiveness of the multilateral
system.
 We already know that the UNO negotiations are bound to be very
slow
 Parallel initiatives which take precedence
 E.g.: Partnership between REDD+ (Participation of participants,
safeguards, transparent, rights of indigenous peoples)
 And which are added to the Convention
 But the multilateral framework remains essential to give a
voice to those who have no other channel of expression
25
Merci de votre attention !
Thank you for your kind
attention !