ASSESSMENT OF THE OUTCOME OF THE UNFCCC COP15 & CMP5, HELD IN COPENHAGEN, DEC 2009

1. ASSESSMENT OF THE OUTCOME OF THE UNFCCC COP15 & CMP5, HELD IN COPENHAGEN, DEC 2009 09 March 2010

2. Background • 2007 – international agreement to conclude negotiation of new multi-lateral climate regime beyond 2012 under the Convention and its’ Kyoto Protocol • 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 countries; • How to verify and ensure compliance with respective commitments and linked to this, the question of • Who pays

3. SA Position 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

4. Copenhagen process • Fundamental disagreements among blocks • Developed country efforts to “kill Kyoto” • The 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. Noted

5. 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 LCA text – but still disagreement on “killing Kyoto” • Decisions – Guidance to CDM & ETS; Adaptation Fund; Compliance Committee; Capacity building; admin & budget

6. 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 (submission due 31 Jan) • mechanism to record developing country emission reduction actions (submission due 31 Jan) • 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

7. Political dynamics • Developed countries • united to “kill Kyoto” (except Norway) • Divided on legal nature of their commitment – Umbrella Gp = domestically binding; EU & Env Integrity Gp = internationally binding • Divided on level of ambition of mid & long term commitment & global goal & how to share & recognise early action • Developing country- united on principles but divided • Global goal (1,5 degree & 350ppm vs 2 degree & no ppm) • Differentiation (BASIC & OECD developing countries) 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

8. 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

9. Accord Follow Up • Letters from UNFCCC secretariat and others in Jan re 31st Jan deadline for listing actions • SA has listed an intention to reduce emissions by 34% by 2020 and 42% by 2025 conditional on a legally binding outcome in Mexico and provision of finance, technology and capacity building. • 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.

10. SA Deviation from Business As Usual • Figures calculated on basis of LTMS + IRP + CTF Portfolio • Presumes that with conditionalities met + that all actions can be achieved • Need to ensure alignment and integration with other processes such as IPAP, IRP as well as with climate policy process • Detail also to be used to develop funding proposals – test Accord commitments.

12. Thank you