1 / 13

ECP Colloquium: Climate change: key actions for crucial years ahead Brussels, March 2007

S. B. A. I. C. ECP Colloquium: Climate change: key actions for crucial years ahead Brussels, March 2007 Overview of international negotiations Erik Haites, Margaree Consultants Farhana Yamin, Int. Development Studies Niklas Höhne, Ecofys. S. B. A. I. C. Outline. Background

abia
Download Presentation

ECP Colloquium: Climate change: key actions for crucial years ahead Brussels, March 2007

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. S B A I C ECP Colloquium: Climate change: key actions for crucial years ahead Brussels, March 2007 Overview of international negotiations Erik Haites, Margaree Consultants Farhana Yamin, Int. Development Studies Niklas Höhne, Ecofys

  2. S B A I C Outline • Background • Current “negotiations” • “Real” negotiations • Fora for continued discussions • Prospects of a successful agreement • Signs of optimism • Signs of troubles • Implications for crucial years ahead • Summary

  3. S B A I C Background • Science: major emissions cuts needed (global emissions need to peak in 10-15 years) if we want to have about 50% chance of stabilising at2°C • Economics: stabilisation between 500 & 550ppmv costs 1% of global GDP if action is not delayed – next 10-15 years crucial window • Policy: international climate process appears stagnant & incapable of delivering agreement • Implementation: global emissions rising- a growing gap between policy & implementation • Can policy/implementation catch up in the right timeframe?

  4. Convention UNFCCC creates structures for international climate change efforts Accepted universally Provisions for review of efforts to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of GHGs 1995 decision that efforts were not adequate led to negotiation of Kyoto Protocol 2005 decision for a 2 year Dialogue on “long term cooperative action” Protocol Protocol sets emissions limits for 39 developed (Annex B) countries for 2008-2012 Rejected by USA/Australia 2005 decision to create Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I parties under the Protocol (AWG), open ended Article 9 review in 2006, with further reviews in 2008 and at intervals of 3 to 4 years S B A I C Current “Negotiations”

  5. S B A I C Current Negotiations • Three processes with different participation andscopes • AWG – Protocol, commitments forAnnex B parties • Article 9 – Protocol, commitments for all Kyoto parties • Dialogue – FCCC, discussion of actions for all FCCC Parties • Some processes conclude at COP-13, December 2007 • None will produce post-Kyoto agreement • Likely outcome, one or more mandates to continue discussions or start negotiations – a Bali mandate

  6. S B A I C “Real” Negotiations • Real negotiations will start when the position of the next US President and Congress are clear; 2009 at earliest • Continue discussions in various fora so that serious negotiations can begin quickly; with or without the USwhen its position is clear • Value of AWG/Dialogue/Article 9 processes is to allow: • Examination of merits/shortcoming of various proposals • Build trust among Parties • Build buy-in from relevant constituencies - domestic and international – to ensure rapid implementation of whatever is eventually agreed

  7. S B A I C “Real” Negotiations • No change in US attitude may mean little change in existing level of commitments of EU and no new commitments by developing countries • Serious interest by US means larger reductions by Annex B parties and flexible forms of commitments by developing countries

  8. S B A I C Fora for “Real” Negotiations • Discussions/negotiations will occur simultaneously in several fora • G8+5 process launched at Gleneagles continues at least through mid-2008 (heads of government of key countries) • Bali mandate(s) likely to be agreed at COP-13 for 2 to 3 years (environment ministers of Kyoto or FCCC Parties) • Possible UN CC Summit (heads of government of UN members)

  9. S B A I C Fora for “Real” Negotiations • Fora offer different opportunities for agreement • G8+5 offers possibility of deals on climate and other issues (energy?trade?) among key countries, followed by FCCC negotiations on details of the climate portion • FCCC/KP mandate allows environment ministers to negotiate a deal if the US is not interested or after the big deal is agreed • UN Summit brings heads of more governments to the table but will need 2 to 3 years of preparation to get a serious agreement

  10. Signs for optimism Prospects of domestic action in US better than ever – election results & new initiatives California/RGGI G8+5 process giving CC higher profile in major countries & IFIs EU unilateral target at least a 20% reduction by 2020, 30% if other Annex I take action UK unilateral legally binding CO2 target - 60% reduction by 2050 and a 26 to 32% reduction by 2020 Increased support from business for long term stable regime Troubles ahead? Global emissions growing esp. in transport & excluded aviation sector Environmental integrity of carbon markets needs strengthening for broader public acceptance Major investments, esp. in DCs, rapidly locking in high carbon pathways Countries not on track to reach Kyoto targets (US, Canada…) likely to demand special treatment weakening new agreement Multiplicity of negotiating fora could create complications S B A I C Prospects for a Successful Agreement

  11. S B A I C Implications for Crucial Years Ahead • Enhance economic, environmental and equity analysis and assessment of different kinds of “deals” or “packages” by as many players as possible • Ensure domestic constituencies buy in to likely parts of prospective deals – test post 2012 ideas at domestic level esp. in developing countries • Ensure Bali mandate(s) builds trust among Parties, advances technical work on issue where current thinking is weakest (technology, adaptation, deforestation, national reduction potential) • Develop “model rules” & “draft texts” in parallel so that the final package can be rapidly operationalized as political deal emerges

  12. S B A I C Implications for Crucial Years Ahead: Possible Mandate… Since time for an agreement for 2013 is short, a mandate(s) from the various processes could include: • Continuation of the Kyoto structure for a second commitment period 2013 to 2017 without the US and with voluntary action by developing countries to keep system running • Agreement to negotiate a new fully global regime for third commitment period 2018 to 2022 that includes US and major developing countries

  13. S B A I C More Information • Building & Supporting Institutional Capacity on CC in Brazil, China, India & South Africa (BASIC) focusing on developing a post 2012 “package” • Sao Paulo Proposal for Future International Climate Policy • Details at: www.basic-project.net/ • Follow up project 2007-8 : Supporting National Assessments of Post 2012 Proposals (SNAPP), SNAPP 2012 • testing political and practical feasibility of Sao Paulo & other packages in BASIC countries over 2007-8. • WWF International gutmann@wwf.de

More Related