Document Sample
Mitigation Powered By Docstoc
					initiative européenne de renforcement des capacités
                                                      european capacity building initiative


                                                                                                                                                                                    european capacity building initiative
                                                                                              Title: Mitigation
                                                                                              Sub-title : Tricky targets! Mitigation negotiations
                                                                                                          under KP
                                                                                              Authors (and Affiliations): Gebru Jember
                                                                                                     Programme officer,
                                                                                                     Climate Change Forum-Ethiopia
                                                                                              for sustained capacity building in support of international climate change negotiations
                                                                                              pour un renforcement durable des capacités en appui aux négociations internationales
                                                                                              sur les changements climatiques

                                         european capacity building initiative
1. Introduction

2. Scale of emission reductions needed

3. What is the situation at present?

4. unresolved political issues

5. Conclusion
                       I. Background
• In December 2007 at the COP-13 in Bali, more than 180 countries

                                                                    european capacity building initiative
  adopted the Bali Road Map, a two-year negotiating process for
  designing a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, the climate agreement
  set to expire in 2012.

• An important outcome was a shared recognition among countries
  that deep cuts in global emissions will be required to avoid
  dangerous climate change.

• The COP-14 in Poznań was the most important interim meeting
  before the negotiating process was expected to be concluded, at
  COP-15 in Copenhagen in November 2009.

• At COP15, the “Copenhagen Accord”
european capacity building initiative
                 Main issues

                               european capacity building initiative
•   Emission Reduction
•   CDM Reform
•   Adaptation
•   Technology Transfer
•   Finance
•   Mitigation
•   Capacity building
Emission Reduction
   • To agree on emission targets of countries

                                                                              european capacity building initiative
• To ease the access of developing countries for CDM funds
• To probably include some items such as REDD, nuclear and CCS under the

 • Bali Action Plan 1(b)(iii): 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
               Emission Reduction

                                                                european capacity building initiative
• To agree on emission targets of countries
• We need to cap the temperature increases at 2 degree celsius to
  avoid catastrophe
• The global temperature has already increased by 0.8
• Developed countries that are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol
  are already committed to reduce emissions by 2012: Emissions
  should have fallen to 1990 levels and 5% below the 1990‟s by
• The reality: emissions have increased by 14.5% just between
  1990 and 2006 and it „s still on the rise
Carbon market
   •Originated from Kyoto Protocol adopted in 1997, in force 16 February 2005.

   •Quantifed emission reduction of GHG for developped countries (Annex I) 5.2 %

                                                                                 european capacity building initiative
   reduction from 1990 level. Countries have between 2008 and 2012 to fulfil their
Three mandatory mechanisms
   •Clean development Machanism (between developed and developing countries)

   • Joint implementation (between Countries with economy in transition of Eastern
   Europe and developed countries)

   • Emission Trading Scheme (between developed countries)
   Marrakech Agreements COP7 defined eligibility criteria to CDM

Voluntary Market
   For carbon sequestration: Only Afforestation and Reforestation on
   non forested land since 31 December 1989 are eligible.
                                                 european capacity building initiative
Scale of emission reductions needed

      Scale of emission reductions
         •       2020
         •       What is situation at present?
Scientific evidence suggests that a 450ppm CO2e pathway with over-shoot gives a
             40–60% probability to limit global warming to 2 degrees
                                                                                          Probability of
                                                                                          temperature    Expected

                                                                                                                                           european capacity building initiative
                                                                                          increase under temperature
       Global GHG emissions and pathways for GHG stability                                2˚C            increase
       GtCO2e per year
 70                                    Peak at 550 ppm, long-term stabilization 550 ppm
                                       Peak at 510 ppm, long-term stabilization 450 ppm
                                       Peak at 480 ppm, long-term stabilization 400 ppm


                                                                                                                             • 450ppm is not
                                                                              550 ppm          15–30                 3.0˚C       safe – it has a
                                                                              pathway                                            40–60% pro-
                                                                                                                                 bability of
                                                                              450 ppm                                            warming
                                                                              pathway          40–60                 2.0˚C       exceeding 2oC
 20                                                                                                                          •   Even 2oC will
                                                                                                                                 require signifi-
                                                                              400 ppm                                            cant investment
                                                                                               70–85                 1.8˚C
 10                                                                           pathway                                            in adaptation

   2005     10     15     20      25     30      35       40      45     2050
* Climate impact estimates for current proposals calculated using C-ROADS model
Source: IPCC WG3 AR4,, den Elzen, van Vuuren; Meinshausen; Global GHG Abatement Cost Curve v2.0, Catalyst analysis
    Our common but differentiated future

                                                              european capacity building initiative
• All Annex I
  emissions need
  to reduce,                                         Global

  starting now
• Some
  developing                       EU, US, Annex 1
  countries need
  to start taking
  action                    2000                                     2050
The range of the difference between emissions in 1990 and emission
allowances in 2020/2050 for various GHG concentration levels for the Annex I
and non-Annex I countries as a group

                                                                                                 european capacity building initiative
                  Implications for international agreements
      Scenario    Region        2020                      2050
      A-450     Annex I         -25% to -40%              -80% to -95%
      ppm CO2 – Non-Annex I     15-30% deviation from     Substantial deviation from baseline
      eq2)                      baseline in Latin         in all regions
                                America, Middle East,
                                East Asia
      B-550       Annex I       -10% to -30%              -40% to -90%
      ppm CO2 -   Non-Annex I   Deviation from baseline   Deviation from baseline in most
      eq                        in Latin America and      regions, especially in Latin America
                                Middle East, East Asia    and Middle East

      C-650       Annex I       0% to -25%                -30% to -80%
      ppm CO2 -   Non-Annex I   Baseline                  Deviation from baseline in Latin
      eq                                                  America and Middle East, East Asia

                                           Source: IPCC, AR4, den Elzen and Hoehne, 2008
For a 450ppm pathway, and based on equity considerations,
developed countries should take on stringent emission caps
                   and provide support

                                                                                                     european capacity building initiative
       450 ppm pathway as global goal and following equity considerations

              Resulting responsibilities for developed countries

                                 • Take on collective caps which are consistent with a 450
                                   ppm pathway
                                     – 80-95% below 1990 by 2050
                                     – 25-40% below 1990 by 2020

             Support on          • Provide financial support to developing countries on
             mitigation/           adaptation and mitigation

                                  • Develop/ demonstrate emerging low C technologies
             Leadership on        • Facilitate the transfer of environmentally sound technologies,
             technology             know-how, practices and processes to developing countries

Source: IPCC AR4 Box 13.7
• Offset mechanisms must be secondary to domestic

                                                           european capacity building initiative
  efforts. A need to define how and how much.

• Decision to reduce should not be guided by political
  consideration but scientific reality and vulnerability

• A need to ensure that mitigation commitment are guided
  by adaptation implications of delayed or weak
  commitments on mitigation actions
• Developed countries should declare their commitments and then

                                                                   european capacity building initiative
  developing countries will have confidence to act.

• MRVed Means of implementation first then MRVed NAMAs

•   Under NAMAs three types of actions are envisaged:
    – Unilateral
    – Supported with international funding under the UNFCCC
    – Trade, linked into actions (tradable and linked to carbon

•   Institutional arrangement for NAMAs will be important. Three
    possible approaches.
     – registry approach;
     – Low carbon development plans;
     – Schedule approach
european capacity building initiative
        What is situation at present?
• The Bonn II and III Climate Change Talks were held from 31 May to 11 June and
  2-6 August 2010, respectively in Bonn, Germany and the last one before Cancun

                                                                                  european capacity building initiative
  in Tianjin, China from 4-9 October 2010. The AWG-KP focus was on:

•The AWG-KP focus was on:
       Annex I emission reductions;

      Other issues including:
       The flexibility mechanisms and
       Land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF); and
      Legal issues on ways to avoid the gap between the implementation
       of the first and second commitment periods ; and

       Potential consequences of response measures
Among the concerns expressed by developing and least developed parties include:

                                                                                     european capacity building initiative
      slow progress and urged Annex I parties to raise the level of ambition in their
       current mitigation pledges
      some parties‟ lack of commitment to the Kyoto Protocol‟s future and urged
       agreement on a second commitment period as soon as possible to avoid critical
       increases in global temperatures

The reactions from most of the Annex I countries include:

 the need to make progress on technical issues in order to guarantee the
  environmental integrity of the outcome in Cancun and as it is a common
  concern, there is a need to have synergies between the two AWGs
 improve understanding and increase the transparency of all mitigation
  commitments in the Copenhagen Accord and urged working in line with
  the AWG-LCA
 consider carryover of Assigned Amount Units (AAUs)
 a fair and effective international framework in which all major emitters
Annex I Emission Reductions:

                                                                 european capacity building initiative
Discussions focused on how:

• to raise the level of ambition of Annex I pledges;

• to translate pledges into quantified emission limitation and
  reduction objectives (QELROs); and

• the relationship between Annex I commitments and:

          surplus AAUs;
          LULUCF; and
          The flexibility mechanisms
Annex I Emission Reductions:
• On the length and number of future commitment periods:

                                                                        european capacity building initiative
     two five year
    One five year and
    One eight year
• On comparability:
   using a single legally-binding base year with multiple reference

  using a table with base years as defined by individual countries in their
  pledges, as well as columns comparing 1990 and other common base

  Several developed and developing countries called for retaining 1990
  as the base year for the sake of simplicity, comparability and
A paper presented by Bolivia below highlights:

                                                                          2007 emissions
                                                                          Minimum pledge (QELRO interpolated to 2013-2017 by…         •Annex I Parties

                                                                                                                                                        european capacity building initiative
  Emissions (2007) and Pledges (2013-

    2017) relative to 1990 emissions

                                                                                                                          1990        will only take the
                                                                                                                                      high end of their

                                                                                                 (with excess AAUs…
                                                                                                                                      targets if they get


                                                    New Zealand

                                              Russian Federation



                                                European Union

                                                                                                 Annex B Aggregate
                                   -40%                                                                               45% reduction   the surplus AAUs
                                                                                                                      50% reduction
                                                                                                                                      and LULUCF
                                               Annex B Party reduction pledges, aggregate Annex B                                     emissions loopholes
                                   -80%         reduction, and aggregate Annex B reduction with                                       that they want
                                                       excess AAUs and LULUCF Credits
                          -100%                  [references: UNFCCC Secretariat and Rogelj et al, Nature 10 April 2010]

• A paper presented by AOSIS also shows the 17-25% pledged by Annex I parties would
result in effective emission reductions of only 1-7% when all the technical rules are
•Even if the aggregate emission trend is decreasing compared to the base year, there
  are parties which still have increasing trend
•Some parties, however, stressed that the use of LULUCF and the flexibility mechanisms
should aim to increase the level of ambition of the current pledges and not just to achieve
the current pledges.
On impact of technical rules on aggregate ambition:

                                                                                   european capacity building initiative
The primary topics of discussions include the implications of these ranges and
options on aggregate emission reductions, and on how to deal with them.

Options highlighted by Parties to address the impact of the carryover of surplus
AAUs include:
    not allowing carryover;
    capping carryover; restricting carryover use(allowing carryover of x% of AAUs);
    adopting stricter emission reduction targets to absorb the surplus;
    Putting AAUs in a strategic reserve.
    taxing transfer or acquisition of carryover AAUs;
    agreeing not to purchase surplus AAUs; and
    Restricting use of acquired AAUs.

In the 14th session, a table of options on carryover of surplus AAUs was
presented by the secretariat and parties give their reflections. The Russian
Federation has been highlighting that any proposal to eliminate or limit
carryover is inconsistent with the Kyoto Protocol.
On translating pledges into QELROs,
The Secretariat presented:
   •A paper compiling pledges, related assumptions and associated emission

                                                                           european capacity building initiative
   reductions (FCCC/KP/ AWG/2010/INF.1); and
   •A technical paper on translating pledges into QELROs (FCCC/TP/2010/2).
Among issues raised by parties include:
• pledges should not simply be translated into QELROs, it needs to be
negotiated at the political level;

• how the methodologies outlined in the technical paper would apply to
actual pledges on the table;
     The Secretariat then prepared and presented two tables (for a
    commitment period of eight and five years, respectively) translating
    current pledges into QELROs
• call for a joint discussion of emission reductions by all Annex I countries; and
• A call for broader discussion of the commitments of all countries.
Other Issues:
The key issues discussed included construction and transparency of
reference levels and interannual variability.

                                                                                              european capacity building initiative
Among issues raised by parties include:
• broadening the scope of eligible LULUCF activities under the CDM
• conclusions should focus on improving the Protocol‟s environmental
  integrity and not creating more loopholes
• The need for transparency in accounting and consideration of potential
  linkages between LULUCF rules and REDD+.
Brazil, for the G-77/China, outlined the G-77/China‟s proposal on constructing reference
  •Parties would inscribe their reference levels in an annex and would then be required to submit a
  description of the elements used in their construction, followed by a period for revision.
  •Proposed a review of reference levels starting in 2012 and of annual inventories, highlighting
  the need to ensure that accounting occurs with the same elements used in establishing reference
  •Called on parties to begin discussing elements of potential review guidelines.
  •Noting problems of accurate, transparent and verifiable accounting of forest management
  activities. However, Tuvalu underscored that there are other accounting options.
The G-77/China also proposed a cap on forest management that is fixed for all
parties, noting lack of agreement on a specific percentage. Parties then have raised

                                                                                            european capacity building initiative
issues like:

  • Whether caps are necessary, given the transparent accounting in the G-77/China‟s proposal.
  • Caps should only apply to forward-projection baselines.
  • Historical averages should be used as baselines.

During Bonn III session, discussions were based on a Chair‟s note (FCCC/KP/AWG/2010/6/Add.2).
Delegates exchanged views and presented four proposals from parties on:

    •accounting for forest management;
    •force majeure ;
    •use of harvested wood products; and
    •Including and reviewing the reference levels for accounting of
    emissions and removals from forest management.
The contact group held a joint session with the LULUCF spin-off group,
to consider the overlap between LULUCF and the numbers. Issues

                                                                                   european capacity building initiative
considered by parties include:
   how LULUCF can help fill the gap between Annex I parties‟ level of ambition and
    the IPCC ranges;

   the possible contribution of LULUCF to meeting parties‟ QELROs, and whether
    such contribution should be open-ended, capped or vary according to parties‟
    judgment; and

   What additional information is required regarding the role of LULUCF to enable
    agreement on Annex I targets.

• Then parties suggested exploring the consequences of the various options
  regarding base year, LULUCF scenarios and treatment of surplus
  AAUs, together with their impacts on the desired environmental outcome.
Flexibility Mechanisms:
Discussions focused on the Chair‟s note on the flexibility mechanisms (FCCC/KP/AWG/2010/6/Add.3).
The proposals covered a range of topics, including:
   •CCS and nuclear under the CDM;

                                                                                       european capacity building initiative
   •standardized baselines;
   •discount factors;
   •joint implementation (JI) and co-benefits of CDM and JI;
   •carryover of AAUs;
   •share of proceeds for CERs issuance;
   •emissions trading;
   •new market mechanisms;
   •Wording of proposal on quantitative limit on supplementarity; and
   •Increased use of CERs from certain host countries with less than a certain amount of
   CDM projects.
Methodological Issues:
Discussions on this issue (FCCC/KP/AWG/2010/6/Add.4) were focused on:
      •inclusion of new GHGs;
      •common metrics to calculate CO2 equivalence of greenhouse gases and
      application of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines; and
      •The list of sectors and categories in Protocol Annex A
Legal Issues:
Discussions focused on
   • Options to address a possible gap between commitment periods, its implications on
     Protocol institutions, a proposed paper and defining the gap.

                                                                                                            european capacity building initiative
The Secretariat explained that avoiding a gap requires that three-quarters of Protocol
parties deposit their ratification instruments by 3 October 2012
On options,
On legal options for addressing the gap between commitment periods, the Secretariat‟s paper addressed:
     changing the amendment procedures to allow for expedited entry into force;
      provisional application of amendments as provided for in the Vienna Convention
      on the Law of Treaties; and
     Possible extension of the first commitment period.
On the implications of a possible gap, the Secretariat noted that if mechanisms or institutions are characterized
as assisting parties in meeting their obligations under Article 3.1, then it is “doubtful” they would continue to
exist without a second commitment period.

•Australia said a gap would not prevent the continuation of key elements of the Protocol, such as
 the CDM and JI.
•The EU agreed that it is up to parties to decide and that he believes the CDM will continue. And
 emphasized that 80% of global emissions trading is based on the EU‟s Emissions Trading
 Scheme, which will continue operating regardless of a gap in commitment periods.
Potential consequences of response measures:
  •This issue relates to the consideration of information

                                                       european capacity building initiative
  on potential environmental, economic and social
  consequences, including spillover effects, of tools,
  policies, measures and methodologies available to
  Annex I parties,

  •Discussions in the contact group centered on
  methods for deepening understanding and a possible
  system to respond to negative consequences.
Potential consequences of response measures:
The focus was on the question of establishing a permanent forum or

                                                                      european capacity building initiative
using existing channels, including national communications.

•Brazil said a permanent forum is necessary to report, evaluate and
address the specific needs and concerns of non-Annex I countries.

•New Zealand and the EU said this might duplicate the work of the SBI
in reviewing national communications and might contravene on parties‟
sovereign rights.

•The EU noted that information needs to come from both developing and
developed countries, and said the issue should be addressed under SBI
and SBSTA.
european capacity building initiative
             unresolved political issues

                                            european capacity building initiative
• First commitment period of the Kyoto
  Protocol: 2008-2012
• New commitments required for the period
  beyond 2012
• AWG-KP established in December 2005 to
  agree on such commitments through an
  amendment to the Protocol
             Broad areas of divergence
• Scope of the mandate

                                                                european capacity building initiative
   – Restricted to new legally binding commitments; or
   – Include also adjustments to the rules and the Protocol‟s
• Arriving at the quantification of commitments
   – Top down vs. bottom up approaches
   – Global reductions vs. only Annex I
   – Pledges: insufficient (currently 17-25% below 1990 by
     2020) and not transparent
• Other: limited coverage of the Protocol, historical
  responsibility and linkages to the AWG-LCA
   Issues to be solved in Cancun &/or beyond
• Most remains to be solved

                                                      european capacity building initiative
• Main political issues:
  – New quantified commitments: aggregate and
    individual reductions
  – Rules for the use of sinks
• Specific/technical issues:
  – Length of the commitment period, how to express
  – Improvements to the mechanisms
  – Methodological aspects including new gases,
    reporting guidelines and others
• Global average temperature rise must be kept as far below 2C as possible, compared

                                                                                     european capacity building initiative
  to pre-industrial levels. This requires global emission to peak well before 2020
  (between now and 2015) and to decline rapidly to far below 50% of 1990 levels by
  2050. This is a survival and equity issue for African and LDC Countries

• The pledges for the second commitment period from Annex I Parties reach 17-25%
  from 1990 levels by 2020. Besides, these pledges are also accompanied by loopholes.

• Developed countries must demonstrate credible leadership. Aggregate reductions by
  developed countries must be consistent with Science

• The right to develop is key. Differentiation should be in accordance with capability
  and emission contribution

• In order to deliver what the atmosphere is requesting and ensure the reliability and
  trustworthiness of Annex I Parties emission reduction, their pledges must raise using
  top down approach, and the loopholes must be closed
european capacity building initiative
         THANK YOU