Transcript rules based system

Climate Year 2015
Processes, Decisions, Actors & Outlook
Paris, May 4th 2015
Thomas Hirsch, Advisory Group on Climate Change Advocacy – ACT Alliance
WHY WE NEED A GLOBAL CLIMATE TREATY
• Carbon Dioxide concentration has increased in the atmosphere
from 280 ppm (1860) to 400 ppm (2013) – the highest
concentration since 800 000 years
• 1970 – 2004 GHG emissions increased by 70% and will increase
by another 70% by 2050 if “Business as Usual (BAU)” continues
• To maintain a 50% chance to keep global warming below 2
degrees, an average global rate of de-carbonization of 5.1% per
year until 2050 is needed while current de-carbonization of 0.8%
remains far too low (5.1% wasn’t achieved in a single year since
1945, according to PWC Low Carbon Economy Index 2012)
• Why Paris matters: Global warming of 4°C without a global deal,
of about 3°C with the currently expected low ambition deal, of
2
about 2°C with a robust and rules based system
To close the climate gap we need a rules
based treaty applicable to all major emitters
1. China (25%),
2. U.S. (18%),
3. EU (13%)
4. India
5. Russia
5. Indonesia
6. Brazil
7. Japan
Top 15 = 75% of global emissions
G20 = 80% of global emissions
Emissions of E7 (Brazil, Russia, India,
China, Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico) > G7
100 vulnerable countries < 3% of
emissions
3
Key Factor: Global phase out of fossil fuels by 2050
4
The role of the Paris Climate Agreement
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Send a clear signal to business and the public that low carbon
development is inevitable and an opportunity
Connect the climate agreement with the “real world”
Provide transparency and accountability for country
commitments
Provide framework conditions to accelerate investment into low
carbon development while worsening framework conditions for
the carbon intensive production & consumption
Proof equity and fairness of the agreement
Ensure climate resilience, human rights and well being of climate
vulnerable people
The Paris Narrative
The Paris agreement to become a turning point
for a transformational shift toward low carbon
development (limiting global warming well below
2°C degrees), and improving climate resilience
based on equity
The UNFCCC negotiation framework:
Over-complexity and outdated divide in country groupings
(North – South) not reflecting the current geopolitical
situation make it easy for blockers to hinder the deal we
need
Parties: 196 countries (all UN members, the EU, Nirue & Cook Islands), falling into 3
categories with different types of obligations:
Annex 1 (OECD members in 1992 & economies in transition (EIT),i.e. Eastern Europe &
Russia), with mitigation commitments
Annex 2 (OECD members in 1992) with climate finance commitment
Non-Annex 1, i.e. developing countries
Country Groupings: African Group (54) AILAC, AOSIS (43), BASIC (4), EU, Environmental
Integrity Group, G77 + China, LDC (48), LMDC, Umbrella Group (8)
Observers: UN bodies (UNDP, UNEP, UNCTAD) & its specialized agencies (GEF, IPCC), 100
Inter-Governmental Organisations (IGOs like IEA, IPCC), 1600 Non-Governmental
Organisations like from civil society, science, business, indigeneous, faith etc)
The ACT Position on Paris Agreement
A treaty with a long term vision
Three Long Term Goals to bring transformational change
1. Phasing out carbon emissions & universal access to
renewable energies by mid-century => keep 2 degrees C
2. Ensure climate resilience to all people => adaptation / loss
& damage beyond adaptation
3. Provide the necessary finance, technologies & knowledge
=> a new spirit of cooperation
The ACT Position on Paris Agreement
A treaty based on rules
Transparency & Accountability on climate mitigation and finance
1. Same reporting, monitoring and reporting rules for all
countries (GHG reduction & finance)
2. Overall goals & MRV anchored in international law,
national targets anchored in national law; provide
transparency and accountability for country
commitments
3. Strong review and ratcheting up mechanism according to
adequacy and equity of national contributions
The ACT Position on Paris Agreement
A treaty to overcome vulnerability
No one should be left behind! Strong focus on the needs and
rights of the most vulnerable => in adaptation, risk reduction
and risk sharing and in low carbon development
1. National Adaptation and Risk Management
2. National Low Carbon Development Strategies
Equity and justice => Every country to become climate champion
– but developed countries and other major emitters obliged to
take the lead (emission reduction and finance)
2014-15
No break-through in negotiations despite
positive developments in the real world
• Global mobilization around Ban Ki Mon Summit indicates: Climate
change is back on the Global citizens’ agenda and green issues gain
momentum
• The business sector and global investors has started to move!
Climate change is considered as threatening megatrend and a more
climate friendly energy business model is considered favorable by an
increasing amount of investors and companies
• Political commitments of the 3 mayor emitters China, U.S., and EU
with climate targets & will to take international responsibility
• Considerable finance commitments to the Green Climate Fund
• Threatening megatrend of climate change confirmed by science
• BUT: Climate talks driven by blockers and not by agents of change;
national egoisms and scepticism against UN rules based system
Paris crunch issues and how to address them best
Mitigation: The level of climate ambition of the 3 major polluters China, U.S. & EU
leads on the one hand to increasing efforts of fossil economies to block an
ambitious deal – and is on the other hand not good enough to boost the new
narrative of transformational change leading to an ambitious deal
=> Ambitious INDCs of many countries will help to name & blame free-riders
Finance: Relatively successful GCF pledging conference didn’t
work as a trust-builder; lacking finance roadmap
=> Finance as potential deal maker – but more holistic approach needed, also
addressing targeted instruments, new sources, private finance and safeguards
Climate resilience: Lack of political will of industrialized countries to support a
robust climate resilience framework (adaptation and loss & damage)
=> Resilience as alliance-builder across North-South-blocks against blockers
Rules based system: Maintaining the firewall (i.e. differentiation between Annex 1
& Non-Annex 1) with regard to transparency & accountability (MRV) in combination
with a weak review mechanism leads to a pledge without review deal
=> In an unequal world only robust rules can improve equity
Crunch issues – current views expressed in MEF meeting
On rules based system:
Accountability/transparency: Take para 14 of Lima decision and replace “may” by
“shall” or “Should”: “Agrees that the information to be provided by Parties
communicating their intended nationally determined contributions, in order to
facilitate clarity, transparency and understanding, may include, as appropriate, inter
alia, quantifiable information on the reference point (including, as appropriate, a
base year), time frames and/or periods for implementation, scope and coverage,
planning processes, assumptions and methodological approaches
= Extremely weak and hinders transparency and accountability
On ambition, fairness, racheting up & bindingness of emission reduction targets:
-> Self-differentiation, no racheting up and nationally determined targets
= Pledge without review
On climate resilience:
Adaptation: Paris might include agreement on long-term target and improved
implementation
Loss and damage: WIM to continue and “compensation” may be considered as
“solidarity issue”
INDCs
Delivered (36): Andorra, EU member states (-40%+ by 2030, Gabun (-25% below
BAU by 2025), Lichtenstein, Mexico (-25%+ below BAU by 2030), Norway (as EU),
Switzerland, U.S. (-26-28% below 2005 by 2025), Russia (-25-30% below 1990 by
2030)
Expected to deliver by June (14): Australia, Canada, Chile, Egypt, Japan, China,
New Zealand, Singapore, Saudi-Arabia, Morocco, Armenia, Honduras, Georgia
Jordan
Expected to deliver by September (11): Argentina, Brazil, India, Malaysia,
Philippines, PNG, Cuba, Jamaica, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Guatemala
Expected to deliver by October (12): Kuwait, Peru, Uzbekistan, Uruguay, Côte
d'Ivoire, Sri Lanka, Israel, Ghana, Algeria, Indonesia, Thailand, Ecuador
No dates yet (10): Cameroun, Lebanon, Belarus, UAE, Maldives, Guyana, Paraguay
Swaziland, Botswana, South Korea
Likely to deliver but now indication (14): Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali, Fiji, Gambia,
Mali, Malawi, Ukrania, Mazedonia, Palau, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Viet Nam,
Costa Rica
No indication: about 100 countries
The Processes
April: MEF showed positions, clarified expectations, negotiated crunch
issues
May – November: Ongoing informal negotiations and alliance-building at
various occasions
June: Inter-sessional to cut down the negotiation text and to set general
picture
June: G7 summit to set the tone and manage expectations/clarify
commitments of G7 on long term goal, resilience, finance, carbon markets
July: Financing development conference to maybe clarify connects
between developing and climate finance, to set the tone and to manage
expectations
September: ADP session to continue with text work
September: Post 2015 SDG conference – will clarify range for ambition
October/November: ADP/ministerial/maybe heads of State meeting: key
decisions on legal form, main elements & negotiation text
December: COP 21 in Paris - Fine-tuning and result communication: a
Protocol, COP decisions, and a package of “Paris Solutions”
Mapping of key countries, their motivations &
priorities
COUNTRY GROUP
Rules based system
Mitigation ambition
Finance ambition
Resilience ambition
CHINA
Pledge no review
Low ambition
To stimulate SouthSouth funding
Low ambition
U.S.
Pledge no review
Low ambition
To boost private
investments
Low ambition
EU
Rules based system
Medium ambition
Medium ambition
Low ambition
LDC
Concerned not to be
able to cope
High expectations
High expectations
Priority
AOSIS
divided
High ambition
High expectations
High expectations
AFRICAN GROUP
divided
No priority
Priority
Medium
expectations
AILAC
Rules based system
Medium ambition
Medium ambition
Medium ambition
BASIC
divided
divided
Annex I to deliver
No priority
LIKE MINDED
Maintain firewall
Annex I to act
Annex I to deliver
Annex I to deliver
Power games and lack of understanding will
probably lead to a weak agreement based on
an unbalanced architecture
Summit model/Kyoto
Weak top down
package not providing
the necessary rules:
* Little transparency
* No accountability
* Weak review
* Vague long term goal
* Weak adaptation &
loss & damage
framework
Paris pledge without
review model
Bottom up package:
* Mitigation targets
not ambitious enough
* Weak incentives for
increasing finance
ambition
Pledge model/Cancun
Lack of capacity in vulnerable countries further weakens
their position at both ends, governments & NGOs
Lack of understanding of process, content and strategies/tactics in LDCs, SIDS &
African Group dramatic => leads to passive role, seeking for others to speak on
their behalf (LMDCs), weak networks, little bargaining power, frequent
misconceptions, poor results and frustration
NGOS/CBOs from these countries are often even less well informed, more
ideologically biased, and tend to build high expectations on severe misconceptions
 Lack of Southern think tanks, access to well functioning networks and intense
and trustful exchange between governments & CSOs are hindering factors in
many countries
Recommendations:
 Scale up support for targeted capacity-building (training workshops, coaching,
briefing services, courses, e-learning)
 Develop a long-term strategy to address this structural deficit, including
supporting the creation of think tanks and a different exchange culture in DCs
Lesson learnt for civil society – address the real
challenges and transform them into opportunities
• Don’t repeat the Copenhagen mistake – come to a realistic understanding
of the process and the possible outcome and manage expectations
properly
=> Paris can at best become a milestone but will not deliver the solution
to the climate crisis nor will a top down approach work
• Create a narrative which is appropriate and stresses the opportunities of
climate resilient and low carbon development rather than calling for
salvation through a UNFCCC regime
• Understand the process and what decisions are taken where and when
=> the Paris outcome will be decided months ahead of the conference
• Adapt your advocacy approach accordingly and prioritize