Docstoc

Climate Change Advanced

Document Sample
Climate Change Advanced Powered By Docstoc
					Advanced Developing Countries:
A Key for the Deadlock in the Negotiations for the Design of UNFCCC and KP

in the Post-2012 Period?

Yunus ARIKAN
Climate Change Programme, Senior Project Manager Post-2012 Workshop, 14.3.2008, Budapest

ROAD to COPENHAGEN
UNFCCC
(Bali Action Plan - AWGLCA)

Track-1

Russian Proposal

Ratification Process of the new agreement

A new İnternational regime

Track-2

Kyoto Protocol
AWG (ANNEX-I/B) – Second Review

Heel of Achielle of BAP; 1.b.i – by all developed Country Parties 1.b.ii – by developing country Parties

2009
COP15 - Copenhagen

2012
KP – End of CP1

“The world in 2008 is much different than the world in 1992” – US Submission for BAP
Advanced Developing Countries: A Key for the Deadlock in the Negotiation for the Design of UNFCCC and KP in the Post-2012 Period?

Yunus ARIKAN, REC Turkey

POLITICAL GROUPS: LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR NEGOTIATIONS
Period Negotiation Groups Western and Others Group Cold War

Warsaw Pact
G77

Relatively Homogenous: EU, AOSIS, GRULAC, AOSIS, OPEC
Loose Heterogenous Groups: Umbrella Group, CAC&M Strong Heterogenous Groups: EIG Biggest Mozaic: G77/China

UNFCCC/KP

Advanced Developing Countries: A Key for the Deadlock in the Negotiation for the Design of UNFCCC and KP in the Post-2012 Period?

Yunus ARIKAN, REC Turkey

ANNEX-I
OECD
ANNEX-II
Germany Austria Belgium Denmark Finland

EIT

Belorussia

EU

Russia Ukraine

France Sweden UK Italy Netherlands Luxembourg Ireland Portugal Spain Greece

EU-NMS
Czech Rep. Hungary Poland Slovakia Estonia Latvia
Romania Bulgaria

USA Australia Japan

Switzerland Lichtenstein Monaco S.Korea Mexico

Canada UMBRELLA Norway New Zealand Iceland

Lithuania Slovenia
Croatia

TURKEY
Cyprus, Malta

EIG

AOSIS (G77China)

OPEC

LAC

NON-EU BALKANS
Serbia, Montenegro, BiH, Albania, Macedonia

Non Annex-I

CAC&M
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova

Non-Party: Andorra, Brunei, Somali, Holy See, (original by Höhne, 2003)

Advanced Developing Countries: A Key for the Deadlock in the Negotiation for the Design of UNFCCC and KP in the Post-2012 Period?

Yunus ARIKAN, REC Turkey

UNFCCC LISTING of PARTIES Name
Annex-I

Definition

Parties

Key Issue
Historical Responsibility (Early Industrialiazed Countries) Financial Responsibility

Developed Country Parties OECD’92+EIT+EC and Other Parties included in Annex-I (4.2) OECD’92+EIT+EC-TR

Annex-II Developed Country Parties and Other Developed Parties included in Annex-II (4.3)

Officially, the text of the UNFCCC involves no reference to a term “Non-Annex-I”, but terms “developed” and “developing” are used frequently.

KP LISTING of PARTIES Name Definition
Annex-B Quantified Emission Limitation or Reduction Obligations (compared to 1990, % of GHG Emissions, in 2008-2012)

Parties
UNFCCC AI – Belorussia* and Turkey

* Until Decision 10/CMP2 enters into force

Advanced Developing Countries: A Key for the Deadlock in the Negotiation for the Design of UNFCCC and KP in the Post-2012 Period?

Yunus ARIKAN, REC Turkey

WEAKEST LINKS OF THE UNFCCC/KP; - NO CLEAR DEFINITION for MITIGATION TARGET (Art.2; Art.3.2.a) - NO CLEAR DEFINITION AND DIFFERENTIATION OF DEVELOPED AND
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

MAIN REASON; poor quantitative analysis of emissions of CO2 even in the OECD (CO2 is not considered as a pollutant).

• The first IPCC GHG Inventory Guideline in 1996

• The first IEA CO2 Emissions of Fossil Combustion in 1997 - Therefore; - No emissions figure in UNFCCC in 1992, - no absolute figures, only a % indication in Annex-B

1987 MONTREAL PROTOCOL FOR THE OZONE LAYER AND PHASE-OUT OF OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES (CFCs)
- Article. 2; calculated levelof consumption shall not exceed 1986 figures - Article 5.1; developing country definition – max 0.3 kg/cap.yr - All CEE, SEE + Turkey + S.Korea + Mexico ; considered as developing country - Turkey; Worldwide success story for the phase out from 5000 ton/yr to 300 ton/yr in
1990-2000, thanks to the Multilateral Fund
Advanced Developing Countries: A Key for the Deadlock in the Negotiation for the Design of UNFCCC and KP in the Post-2012 Period?

Yunus ARIKAN, REC Turkey

PROPOSAL FOR THE DEFINITION OF DEVELOPING COUNTRY WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF UNFCCC/KP; Any Party that is not listed in Annex-II can be considered as a developing country, as long as no MRV GHG indicator is proposed! EVIDENCES; - Definition of Annex-I and Annex-II - GEF Support to Annex-I Countries based on eligibility criteria of Article.9.b of GEF

Instrument (A country shall be an eligible recipient of GEF grants if it is eligible to borrow

from the World Bank (IBRD and/or IDA) or if it is an eligible recipient of UNDP technical assistance through its country Indicative Planning Figure (IPF • Belarus, Lithuania, Slovenia, Turkey; Enabling Activity Fund for Initial National Communication • In the period 1991-2001; 39 national and 9 international projects receive $200 million (13% of GEF-CC Budget)

- Decision 4/CP7 – Expert Group on Technology Transfer

- Annex-Para.3,4,5; implementation of Art.4.5 of UNFCCC - Annex-Para.15; capacity building is a process in Parties other than developed country
Parties, and other developed Parties not included in Annex II, particularly developing country Parties,

• FCCC/CP/2001/12 – Note by the Secretariat “The term “developing countries” is not defined
by the Convention and does not encompass all the Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention (non-Annex I Parties),”

Advanced Developing Countries: A Key for the Deadlock in the Negotiation for the Design of UNFCCC and KP in the Post-2012 Period?

Yunus ARIKAN, REC Turkey

EXERCISE FOR A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF THE COUNTRIES IN THE REC REGION
BL CZ EST HUN LAT EU-MS LIT POL RO SLK SLV TR EC-CC CR MAC BiH S STABILITY MON AL Developed Developing Industrialized OECD EIT Annex-I Annex-II Annex-B Non-Annex-I Non-Annex-B Vulnerable Most Vulnerable + + + + + + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + + ? + + + + + + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + + ? + + + + + + + ? + + + + + + ? + + + + + + ? + + + + + + ? + + + + ? + + + + ? + + + + ? + + + + ? + + + + ?

EU-MS EC-CC STABILITY BL CZ EST HUN LAT LIT POL RO SLK SLV TR CR MAC BiH S MON AL Developed Developing Industrialized OECD EIT Annex-I Annex-II Annex-B Non-Annex-I Non-Annex-B Vulnerable Most Vulnerable + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ? + + + + + + + + ? + + + + + + + + + + + + Advanced Developing Countries: ? ? ? ?
Yunus ARIKAN, REC Turkey

+

+

+

+ +

+

+

+

+ ?

+ ?

+ ?

+ ?

+ ?

A Key for the Deadlock in the Negotiation for the Design of UNFCCC and KP in the Post-2012 Period?

+ ?

+ ?

+ ?

+ ?

+ ?

+ ?

KEY ISSUE: Responsibilities of the Parties for GHG Mitigation
- Nobody is Perfect! - No Party can claim that s/he is “nobody”!
“common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities”

% 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Contribution to temperature incr ease in 2100 1990 2000 (ref ) 2050 2100

OECD90

EEUR&FSU

Asia

Afric a & Latin America

%

Contribution to temperature incr ease in 2100

HOW MUCH

MITIGATION;

WHAT COST WHO

WHEN

?

25 20 15 10 5 0

Advanced Developing Countries: Asia Asia A Key for the Deadlock in the Negotiation for the Design of UNFCCC and KP in the Post-2012 Period?

USA

South Amer

South. OECD Africa Europe

FSU

South

East

Kaynak: RIVM-ACCC

Yunus ARIKAN, REC Turkey

MITIGATION; HOW MUCH/WHAT COST? 27 Gt CO2 eq. emission reduction possibilities below € 40 per ton CO2

7 GT CO2-eq
Courtesy of Artur RUNGE-METZGER, EC

= Total US Emissions in 2004 = Emissions of EU+Japan in 2004

Advanced Developing Countries: A Key for the Deadlock in the Negotiation for the Design of UNFCCC and KP in the Post-2012 Period?

Yunus ARIKAN, REC Turkey

MITIGATION; WHO/WHEN?
70 60 50

Developed countries

Developing countries

GtCO2eq

Trade
40 30 20 10 0

20132017

20182022

20232027

20282032

20132017

20182022

20232027

20282032

Courtesy of Artur RUNGE-METZGER, EC

Advanced Developing Countries: A Key for the Deadlock in the Negotiation for the Design of UNFCCC and KP in the Post-2012 Period?

Yunus ARIKAN, REC Turkey

EMISSIONS OF TOP 10 NON-ANNEX-B COUNTRIES
Total GHG Emissions (millon ton CO2-eq) 2000 China India Brezilya Mexico G.Kore Indonesia S.Africa Iran S. Arabia Argentina Türkiye 4882,7 1606,5 949,8 573,3 524,7 502,7 441,6 422,1 319,6 296,1 280 Change in GHG GHG Increase Rate Emissions in 1990-2000 (%) (millon ton CO2-eq) China India G. Kore Iran Indonesia S. Arabia Brezilya Türkiye Mexico S.Africa Pakistan 1247 457 246 178 164 148 125 100 87 69 40 G. Kore Indonesia Iran S. Arabia India Pakistan Türkiye Brezilya China Mexico S.Africa 97 97 93 91 70 60 59 57 49 28 23

Population in 2000 (million) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 China India Indonesia Brasil Pakistan Mexico Iran Türkiye S.Korea S.Africa S. Arabia 1321 1100 245 183,9 169 103,3 70 67,4 48,8 44,2 27

Based on CAIT, CCAP

Advanced Developing Countries: A Key for the Deadlock in the Negotiation for the Design of UNFCCC and KP in the Post-2012 Period?

Yunus ARIKAN, REC Turkey

INDICATORS of BIG 3 and Non-EU, Non-Annex-B OECD

TPES/GDP CO2/GDP CO2/POP 2004 1990-2004 2004 1990-2004 2004 1990-2004 S.Korea 0,23 6% 0,50 -6% 9,7 82% Non-EU,Non-Annex-B Mexico 0,17 -11% 0,39 -15% 3,6 0% OECD Turkey 0,15 -5% 0,40 0% 2,9 28% S.Korea has the highest energy and carbon intensity, but Mexico has shown a better track record in improvement. China 0,22 -52% 0,64 -47% 3,5 79% BIG-3 Brasil 0,15 8% 0,24 18% 1,8 36% India 0,17 -26% 0,36 -14% 1,0 48% China, despite the highest energy and carbon intensity, has shown a better track record in improvement
Based on IEA, only CO2 emissions fossil combustions

The technical capacity, potential of GHG reduction and the pace of improvement indicate a clear signal that the countries can contribute more actively in the global mitigation efforts, as long as appropriate funding and technology transfer is provided . Historical responsibility (OECD) and magnitude of emissions (BIG-3) can be regarded as the main driving forces for different types of commitments.
Advanced Developing Countries: A Key for the Deadlock in the Negotiation for the Design of UNFCCC and KP in the Post-2012 Period?

Yunus ARIKAN, REC Turkey

Advanced Developing Countries: A Key for the Deadlock in the Negotiation for the Design of UNFCCC and KP in the Post-2012 Period?

Yunus ARIKAN, REC Turkey

TYPES OF COMMITMENTS
Source: Ellis, Baron, Buchner,OECD/IEA, 2007

Source: Schmidt, Helme, CCAP 2006

Advanced Developing Countries: A Key for the Deadlock in the Negotiation for the Design of UNFCCC and KP in the Post-2012 Period?

Yunus ARIKAN, REC Turkey

UNFCCC Listing

Relevant KP Articles

KP Listing

Critical KP Countries

Criticial Non-KP Countries
USA

Annex-II
Art. 3.9 Annex-I

Annex-B NonAnnex-B

Belorussia
(until 10/CMP2 enters into force)

Turkey

Cyprus
(member of EU as of 2004)

Malta
(member of EU as of 2004)

NonAnnex-I

Art. 9

NonAnnex-B

S.Korea
(member of OECD since 1996)

Kazakhstan
(plans to be considered as Annex-I for the purposes of the KP)

Mexico
(member of OECD since 1994)

Argentina
(asked for voluntary commitments at COP4)

Turkey is the only Annex-I Party that does not have a QELRO, due to the fact that she is not listed in Annex-B of the Kyoto Protocol, which can be interpreted as the first concrete interpretation of Decision 26/CP7 which places Turkey in a different situation different than other Annex-I Parties.
Advanced Developing Countries: A Key for the Deadlock in the Negotiation for the Design of UNFCCC and KP in the Post-2012 Period?

Yunus ARIKAN, REC Turkey

BROADENING INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS BY INTEGRATING ADVANCED DEVELOPING COUNTRIES* FOR A SUSTAINED AND EQUITY BASED GLOBAL GHG MITIGATION REGIME Annex– B (2008-2012) EU28 OECD (1992-TR-EU) RUS+UKR Belorussia* Annex-B’ (2012-2020) Annex-B + Belorussia* Cyprus Malta OECD (NON-EU, NON-ANNEX-B) Turkey S. Korea Mexico ...... ...... Brasil India China ANNEX - C (2012-2020) ANNEXD,E,F,G

TURKISH CLIMATE DELIGHT:

Art 3.9

Art. 9

* Benito Müller, Framing Future Commitments, 2003 PIONEERING ROLE OF TURKEY; - Member of OECD country, involved in Annex-I, but different than others in Annex-I - Not involved in Annex-B, possibility to contribute in all post2012 process; AWGLCA, AWGKP, KP-Art9, Russian Proposal - Willingness to discuss “a mechanism for the regular review of the development level of countries” , BAP Submission - Could develop a rapid collaboration with the EU, based on Accession Process and enthusiasm of the EU to broaden

international commitments through active collaboration with developing countries - Not evaluated appropriately in any post-2012 scenario until now.

Advanced Developing Countries: A Key for the Deadlock in the Negotiation for the Design of UNFCCC and KP in the Post-2012 Period?

Yunus ARIKAN, REC Turkey

Thank you! Kesönöm! Yunus.arikan@rec.org.tr

Advanced Developing Countries: A Key for the Deadlock in the Negotiation for the Design of UNFCCC and KP in the Post-2012 Period?

Yunus ARIKAN, REC Turkey


				
DOCUMENT INFO