Outcomes of Copenhagen and implications by hkksew3563rd


									Outcomes of Copenhagen
    and implications

      ERC Conference
        March 2010
• Bali – 2007: international agreement to conclude
  negotiation of new multi-lateral climate regime
  beyond 2012 under the Convention and its’
  Kyoto Protocol, by Dec 2009
• 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
   – How to verify and ensure compliance with respective
     commitments and linked to this, the question of
   – Who pays
    SA Expectations 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
   Scenarios for Copenhagen outcome
• In Oct 2009, when global expectations were
  lowered from a legally binding to a political
  outcome, SA formulated 4 outcome scenarios:
  – Foundational (reflecting SA bottom lines)
  – Greenwash (bad outcome marketed as positive)
  – “Redline” or unacceptable outcome
  – Mandate to continue negotiations
• Copenhagen effectively achieved a mandate to
  continue negotiations
             Copenhagen process
• Fundamental disagreements among blocks
   – Structure of the outcome (1 track or 2 tracks)
   – 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.
        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 KP text – but still
    disagreement on “killing Kyoto”
  – Decisions – Guidance to CDM; Adaptation Fund;
    Compliance Committee; Capacity building; admin &
               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
   – mechanism to record developing country emission reduction actions
   – 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 on concern with international competitiveness and
    binding large developing country emitters
  – United to “kill Kyoto” (except Norway)
  – Divided on legal nature of commitment – Umbrella Gp =
    domestically binding; EU & Env Integrity Gp = international
  – Divided on level of ambition of mid & long term
    commitment & global goal
• Developing country- united on principles but divided
  – Global goal (1,5 degree & 350ppm vs 2 degree & no ppm)
  – Differentiation, 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
             Accord Follow Up
• 31st Jan deadline for associating with the Accord and
  listing actions (India and China have associated)
• SA has listed an intention to reduce emissions by 34%
  by 2020 and 42% by 2025 conditional on provision of
  finance, tech & capacity building delivered through an
  international climate change regime in Mexico
• 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.
      Assessment of Copenhagen
• Assessed against SA ambitious expectations, Copenhagen
  was unable to deliver a multilaterally agreed outcome
• However, it did achieve important political agreements, that
  must be carried into the negotiations
• The major challenge in 2010 will be to maintain pressure for
  a multilaterally agreed outcome in Mexico in Dec 2010, that:
   – retains and gives effect to the principle of common but differentiated
   – Is ideally in a 2 track framework
   – Has increased levels of mitigation ambition for developed countries in
     line with the IPCC
   – Has a global goal w/ equitable sharing of remaining carbon space
   – Has a comprehensive international programme on adaptation
   – Has a separate programme on response measures.
• Copenhagen was characterised by a break down in trust and by severe
  process challenges
• 2010 will require significant effort to reduce the trust deficit in order to
  be able to reach a multilaterally agreed outcome in Mexico (2010) or
  South Africa (2011)
• Emerging position from some countries that Copenhagen proved that
  the multilateral process is unworkable and that the Accord provides an
  alternative to the UNFCCC
• However, many reject the Accord & question its legality
• As a foreign policy principle, South Africa should not accept a non-
  inclusive approach.
• Political agreement in the Accord should be used to unblock the multi-
  lateral UNFCCC process
  Towards COP 16/CMP6 (Mexico) &
    COP 17/ CMP7 (South Africa)
• UNFCCC session in April to decide 2010 work program
• Success at COP 16 / CMP6 in Mexico will require:
   – Transparent and inclusive prep process (work done in
     political forums to be taken back to multilat process)
   – Use of political agreements captured in the Accord to
     unblock negotiations
• Focus of COP 17 / CMP 7 (in SA) depends on Mexico;
  success in Mexico = focus on implementation in SA)
• Scenarios: (i) multilateral success in Mexico / SA; (ii)
  fragmented multilateralism (mitigation / finance in other
  forum); (iii) collapse of UNFCCC
        National policy process
• During 2010 a White Paper on CC will be finalised.
• Green Paper in June = basis for public consultation.
• Content: science of climate change; the international
  climate regime; predicted impacts for SA; risk and
  vulnerability profile and sector adaptation strategies; how
  to reduce our emissions, incl identifying opportunities in
  the power generation, transport, industrial and
  agricultural sectors. They will include carbon pricing,
  opportunities in low carbon growth, as well as the
  institutional implications of implementing the policy
  positions that are adopted.
 SA Deviation from Business As
• South Africa’s commitment to action (34% by 2020 and
  42% by 2025) is informed by LTMS; aligned with
  Integrated Resource Plan for the Electricity Sector (IRP)
• Presumes that conditionalities are met + that all actions
  can be achieved
• Reflects an opportunity for South Africa to begin to take
  the actions that would support the achievement of a
  Green Economy.
• Also represents an opportunity for investments that have
  considerable potential to create new industries and new
  job opportunities.
                              Four Strategic Options

       Start Nowis a combination of
       Scale Up is a combination of
1800   aggressive energy efficiency
       Start Now                                                       Industrial efficiency
                                                                     Industrial CO2 tax
       Use the Market is as an
       + extension of energy
       +                                                       600
1600   additional instrument to
       27% nuclear and                                         4500
                                                                                         -R 34
                                                                                        -R 34
       generation to
       Scale Up; it applies a carbon tax
       27% renewable                                           300   Renewables
1400   50% nuclear and                      Growth without      300
                                                                    Nuclear, extended
                                                                                  R 42
       (starting from R100
       energy generation                    Constraints        300
       50% renewable                                            150
1200   (slowing emissions growth);
       by 2050
                                                                  Reach for the Goal
                                                                                    RR 20
       by 2050        1. emissions)
       R250 (stabilising New technology                           Subsidy Nuclear
                                                                          for renewables
                      2. Identify resources                    300 Renewables, extended
1000    to R750 (absolute                                      300
                      3. People-oriented measures Start Now    300
       reductions 2040ff) plus
                      4. Transition to a low carbon economy
                                                                                 R 125
                                                                                    R 18
                                                                                    R 92
800                                                              0
       incentives                                                    Biofuel subsidy
                                                                   Passenger modal shift
                                                               300 Synfuels CCS 23 Mt
600                                         Scale Up Use the Market
                                                              150                     R 697
                                                                00                   -R 1,131
                                                                0                     R 54
                                                               Improved vehicle efficiency
                                                              Electric vehicles in GWC grid
                                                               300     SWH subsidy
200                                Required by Science        300
                                                              150                    -R 269
                                                                   0                    R 607
                                                                                       -R 208
Thank you
                    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

To top