1 / 12

Post-Kyoto: Reflections on the Institutional Dimension

Post-Kyoto: Reflections on the Institutional Dimension. Dr Charlotte Streck Siena 9 June 2006. Climate Change Regime Cornerstones. Take into account intra- and intergenerational justice Broad contract between societies and people

bevis
Download Presentation

Post-Kyoto: Reflections on the Institutional Dimension

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Post-Kyoto: Reflections on the Institutional Dimension Dr Charlotte Streck Siena 9 June 2006

  2. Climate Change Regime Cornerstones • Take into account intra- and intergenerational justice • Broad contract between societies and people • Approach must be multi-disciplinary, multi-sectoral, international • Be adequate to the scale of the problem • Must involve private and public actors • Climate change policy needs to be based on a strong regulatory regime (intl. + ntl.) • Be based multi-sectoral partnerships

  3. Post-Kyoto: Status Quo • No agreement yet. • COP-11: setting of the negotiations framework: • Parties of the UNFCCC will engage in “open and non-binding exchange of views” on future long term co-operative action to address climate change, including further research and development of cleaner technology. (Decision title: “Dialogue on long-term cooperative action to address climate change by enhancing implementation of the Convention”) • Parties to the KP: Decision to initiate negotiations of the second commitment period without delay. The negotiations will commence on May 2006. A decision on the second commitment period is to be adopted by the COP/MOP “as soon as possible. Based on Art. 3.9. (Decision title: “Consideration of commitments for subsequent periods for Parties included in Annex I to the Convention under Article 3, paragraph 9, of the Kyoto Protocol”) • Parties to the KP: Expansion in scope of the KP under Art. 9 KP could establish a third negotiations track

  4. Achievements of the KP • Establishment of a negotiation framework • Builds on international participation • Establishment of a system which creates and allocates (“quasi”-) property rights to emissions • Creation of transferable emission permits • Involves private sector into treaty compliance • Creation of institutions and infrastructure (registries) • CDM as Framework for financial, capacity, and technology transfer Despite significant flaws, it is worth to build a post Kyoto regime on the achievements of the Protocol

  5. “Kyoto II” needs to move beyond “Kyoto I” Kyoto I: • Does not include the US • No emission limitation commitments from developing countries • Is limited in scope (does not cover large sources of emissions such as aviation or deforestation) • Does not address adaptation

  6. Emission Trading • Is by now an universally accepted mechanism in climate policy. Actors that were opposing the concept in Kyoto, have turned into supporters (NGOs, EU). • Will be the mechanism which bears highest chances to bring those entities that are currently not participating to the table. • Allows for “special solutions” acceptable to developing countries (or the US…) • Success of CDM and JI are key to create an atmosphere of cooperation.

  7. Emission Trading after 2012 Should • Build on KP mechanisms • Enlist comprehensive support, allow for different compliance mechanisms • Take into consideration the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities • Needs to move beyond the project-by-project approach • Needs to be linked to a more comprehensive LULUCF framework (transfer of sequestration assets) • Aim at avoiding free-riders • Trigger technology transfer as well as technological change

  8. Common but differentiated responsibilities • The principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities will have to guide discussions. • Developing countries will only accept emission limitation measures if they are linked of mechanisms that ensure financial transfers. • If carefully designed, ET mechanisms will allow to raise the funds; ET must be perceived as chance, not as a constraint. • ODA can be used to support the compliance and enforcement structures of developing countries. • Banking of surplus allowances will allow for a “soft landing” for economies in transition.

  9. Baselines and Accounting Rules • Challenge: Involve US + developing countries into an effective GHG mitigation system • Means: • Combination of elements of a cap-and-trade and crediting approach • US • allow for LULUCF crediting + trading • allow for full flexibility • consider “as-if Party” approaches • allow for recognition of sub-national schemes and efforts • opt-in of non governmental entities • Developing countries • Crediting approach: develop sectoral or even national baselines • Recognize existing CDM projects • Consider GIS-type approaches which help triggering investments • Make eligibility for trading dependent on participation criteria • Participation voluntary for most developing countries; mandatory for G-20 countries

  10. LULUCF post-Kyoto • Forestry emissions responsible for >25% of global emissions • LULUCF not fully included in Kyoto • Key for addressing the problem as well as for forging international consensus • Create incentives for conservation to address the problem of deforestation (eg national baselines, compensated reductions, carbon stock approach) • Full credit for sequestration and mitigation activities • Links mitigation with adaptation strategies

  11. Adaptation • Post-Kyoto regime has to include incentives for the creation of adaptation measures • Problem: how to finance adaptation: • GEF-approaches are not sufficient • Like LULUCF, adaptation needs to be linked institutionally to mitigation measures in order to access the funds available in the energy sectors • Financial transfers from private to private necessary • GIS approaches for adaptation should be developed

  12. Questions Charlotte Streck Climate Focus +31 64 64 2 64 81 C.Streck@climatefocus.com

More Related