Download Mitigation - European Capacity Building Initiative

european capacity building initiative
ecbi
european capacity building initiative
initiative européenne de renforcement des capacités
ecbi
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
1. Introduction
2. Scale of emission reductions needed
3. What is the situation at present?
4. unresolved political issues
5. Conclusion
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
Issues
I. Background
• 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
ecbi
• In December 2007 at the COP-13 in Bali, more than 180 countries
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.
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Emission Reduction
CDM Reform
Adaptation
Technology Transfer
Finance
Mitigation
Capacity building
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
Main issues
Emission Reduction
CDM
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
• To agree on emission targets of countries
• To ease the access of developing countries for CDM funds
• To probably include some items such as REDD, nuclear and CCS under the
CDM
REDD
• 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
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
Emission Reduction
Background
• 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
2012
• 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.
Three mandatory mechanisms
•Clean development Machanism (between developed and developing countries)
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
•Quantifed emission reduction of GHG for developped countries (Annex I) 5.2 %
reduction from 1990 level. Countries have between 2008 and 2012 to fulfil their
comitments.
• 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.
Scale of emission reductions
•
2020
•
What is situation at present?
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
Scale of emission reductions needed
Scientific evidence suggests that a 450ppm CO2e pathway with over-shoot gives a
40–60% probability to limit global warming to 2 degrees
Global GHG emissions and pathways for GHG stability
70
GtCO2e per year
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
60
50
40
• 450ppm is not
30
20
10
0
2005
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
Probability of
temperature
Expected
increase under temperature
2˚C
increase
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
550 ppm
pathway
15–30
3.0˚C
450 ppm
pathway
40–60
2.0˚C
400 ppm
pathway
70–85
•
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
1.8˚C
safe – it has a
40–60% probability of
warming
exceeding 2oC
Even 2oC will
require significant investment
in adaptation
Emissions
• All Annex I
emissions need
to reduce,
starting now
• Some
developing
countries need
to start taking
action
DCs
EU, US, Annex 1
LDCs
2000
Global
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
Our common but differentiated future
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
Scenario
category
Region
2020
2050
A-450
Annex I
ppm CO2 – Non-Annex I
eq2)
-25% to -40%
-80% to -95%
15-30% deviation from
baseline in Latin
America, Middle East,
East Asia
Substantial deviation from baseline
in all regions
B-550
ppm CO2 eq
Annex I
-10% to -30%
-40% to -90%
Non-Annex I
Deviation from baseline
in Latin America and
Middle East, East Asia
Deviation from baseline in most
regions, especially in Latin America
and Middle East
C-650
ppm CO2 eq
Annex I
0% to -25%
-30% to -80%
Non-Annex I
Baseline
Deviation from baseline in Latin
America and Middle East, East Asia
Source: IPCC, AR4, den Elzen and Hoehne, 2008
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
Implications for international agreements
For a 450ppm pathway, and based on equity considerations,
developed countries should take on stringent emission caps
and provide support
Resulting responsibilities for developed countries
Caps
Support on
mitigation/
adaptation
Leadership on
technology
Source: IPCC AR4 Box 13.7
• Take on collective caps which are consistent with a 450
ppm pathway
– 80-95% below 1990 by 2050
– 25-40% below 1990 by 2020
• Provide financial support to developing countries on
adaptation and mitigation
• Develop/ demonstrate emerging low C technologies
• Facilitate the transfer of environmentally sound technologies,
know-how, practices and processes to developing countries
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
450 ppm pathway as global goal and following equity considerations
Mitigation
• Decision to reduce should not be guided by political
consideration but scientific reality and vulnerability
evidence.
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
• Offset mechanisms must be secondary to domestic
efforts. A need to define how and how much.
• A need to ensure that mitigation commitment are guided
by adaptation implications of delayed or weak
commitments on mitigation actions
NAMAs
• 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
markets)
•
Institutional arrangement for NAMAs will be important. Three
possible approaches.
– registry approach;
– Low carbon development plans;
– Schedule approach
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
• Developed countries should declare their commitments and then
developing countries will have confidence to act.
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
What is situation at present?
•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
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
• 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
in Tianjin, China from 4-9 October 2010. The AWG-KP focus was on:
 Legal issues on ways to avoid the gap between the implementation
of the first and second commitment periods ; and
 Potential consequences of response measures
AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON FURTHER COMMITMENTS BY
ANNEX I PARTIES UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
Among the concerns expressed by developing and least developed parties include:
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
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
participate
Annex I Emission Reductions:
• 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
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
Discussions focused on how:
Annex I Emission Reductions:
• On the length and number of future commitment periods:
One five year and
One eight year
• On comparability:
using a single legally-binding base year with multiple reference
years.
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
 two five year
using a table with base years as defined by individual countries in their
pledges, as well as columns comparing 1990 and other common base
years.
Several developed and developing countries called for retaining 1990
as the base year for the sake of simplicity, comparability and
transparency.
A paper presented by Bolivia below highlights:
20%
2007 emissions
Minimum pledge (QELRO interpolated to 2013-2017 by…
1990
-40%
-60%
-80%
-100%
Annex B Aggregate
(with excess AAUs…
-20%
Croatia
Canada
Australia
Belarus
Iceland
New Zealand
Ukraine
Russian Federation
Kazakhstan
Japan
European Union
Liechtenstein
Monaco
Norway
Switzerland
0%
45% reduction
50% reduction
Annex B Party reduction pledges, aggregate Annex B
reduction, and aggregate Annex B reduction with
excess AAUs and LULUCF Credits
[references: UNFCCC Secretariat and Rogelj et al, Nature 10 April 2010]
•Annex I Parties
will only take the
high end of their
targets if they get
the surplus AAUs
and LULUCF
emissions loopholes
that they want
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
Emissions (2007) and Pledges (20132017) relative to 1990 emissions
40%
• 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
considered
•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:
Options highlighted by Parties to address the impact of the carryover of surplus
AAUs include:
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
The primary topics of discussions include the implications of these ranges and
options on aggregate emission reductions, and on how to deal with them.
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.
• 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
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
On translating pledges into QELROs,
The Secretariat presented:
•A paper compiling pledges, related assumptions and associated emission
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;
• 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.
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
Other Issues:
LULUCF:
The key issues discussed included construction and transparency of
reference levels and interannual variability.
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
levels:
•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
levels.
•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.
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
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
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.
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
The contact group held a joint session with the LULUCF spin-off group,
to consider the overlap between LULUCF and the numbers. Issues
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:
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
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
•CCS and nuclear under the CDM;
•standardized baselines;
•CERs;
•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.
Legal Issues:
The Secretariat explained that avoiding a gap requires that three-quarters of Protocol
parties deposit their ratification instruments by 3 October 2012
On options,
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
Discussions focused on
• Options to address a possible gap between commitment periods, its implications on
Protocol institutions, a proposed paper and defining the gap.
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:
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
•This issue relates to the consideration of information
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:
•Brazil said a permanent forum is necessary to report, evaluate and
address the specific needs and concerns of non-Annex I countries.
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
The focus was on the question of establishing a permanent forum or
using existing channels, including national communications.
•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
ecbi
unresolved political issues
Introduction
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
• 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
– Restricted to new legally binding commitments; or
– Include also adjustments to the rules and the Protocol’s
architecture
• 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
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
• Scope of the mandate
Issues to be solved in Cancun &/or beyond
– New quantified commitments: aggregate and
individual reductions
– Rules for the use of sinks
• Specific/technical issues:
– Length of the commitment period, how to express
commitments
– Improvements to the mechanisms
– Methodological aspects including new gases,
reporting guidelines and others
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
• Most remains to be solved
• Main political issues:
Conclusion
european capacity building initiative
ecbi
• Global average temperature rise must be kept as far below 2C as possible, compared
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
ecbi
THANK YOU