Download Berlin to Bali and Beyond

From Berlin to Bali and Beyond:
The Role of Developing Countries
in the Structuring of the Climate
Regime
Lavanya Rajamani
Associate Professor
Centre for Policy Research
New Delhi
Historical Influence: The FCCC, 1992




The burden sharing architecture of the FCCC
The principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities
The “linking clause” in FCCC Article 4 (7) – “the
extent to which developing country Parties will
effectively implement their commitments ..will depend
on the effective implementation by developed
country Parties of their commitments under the
Convention..”
Preambular provisions recognizing that developing
countries’ “share of global emissions” and “energy
consumption” will grow
Historical Influence: The Berlin
Mandate, 1995




Launched the process to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol
Specified that the process “shall” be guided by the
principle of common but differentiated responsibility
Required the process to aim at setting quantified emissions
limitation and reduction objectives within specified time
frames for Annex I Parties
But not introduce any new commitments for non-Annex I
Parties
Historical Influence:
The Kyoto Protocol, 1997





The Preamble to the Kyoto Protocol makes explicit
reference to both the CBDR principle and the
Berlin Mandate
Article 10 reaffirms the CBDR principle
Accordingly, the Protocol requires FCCC Annex
I Parties to reduce their overall emissions of a basket
of greenhouse gases by at least 5% below 1990
levels in the commitment period of 2008-2012
No new commitments for developing countries – no
“voluntary commitments”
Only avenue for participation in mitigation - the
Clean Development Mechanism
The Dialogue on Long term
Cooperative Action, 2005-2007

One of two processes launched at Montreal, 2005:






AWG-KP – Annex I Parties subsequent commitment periods
Dialogue on Long term Cooperative Action, under FCCC
The Dialogue covered actions by all Parties
It was neither binding nor authorized to open
negotiations leading to new commitments
It held four workshops, between 2005-2007, and came
to an end in Bali
It led to the launch of a process at Bali to reach an
“agreed outcome” by COP-15, Copenhagen, 2009
The Bali Action Plan, 2007
1.
[The Conference of Parties] Decides to launch a
comprehensive process to enable the full, effective and
sustained implementation of the Convention through longterm cooperative action, now, up to and beyond 2012, in
order to reach an agreed outcome and adopt a decision at
its fifteenth session, by addressing, inter alia:
(a) A shared vision for long-term cooperative action, including a
long-term global goal for emission reductions, to achieve the
ultimate objective of the Convention…;
The Bali Action Plan &
Industrialized Countries
(b) Enhanced national/international action on
mitigation of climate change, including, inter alia,
consideration of:
(i) Measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally
appropriate mitigation commitments or actions, including
quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives,
by all developed country Parties, while ensuring the
comparability of efforts among them, taking into account
differences in their national circumstances;
The Bali Action Plan &
Developing Countries
(b) Enhanced national/international action on
mitigation of climate change, including, inter alia,
consideration of:
(ii) Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing
country Parties in the context of sustainable
development, supported and enabled by technology,
financing and capacity-building, in a measurable,
reportable and verifiable manner;
Conspicuous Omissions in the text of
the Bali Action Plan

Indicative Range of GHG Mitigation Targets


References to the work of the AWG - KP


Dropped from the draft text after opposition from some
industrialized and some developing countries
Dropped from the draft text in deference to the wishes
of the US, and a few other developed countries
Positive references to the Kyoto Protocol

Only reference to the Protocol - learning from the
“experience in implementation of the Convention and its
Kyoto Protocol”
Evaluating the Bali Action
Plan




Requires all countries developing and developed to take
measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate
mitigation actions
Permits a possible re-negotiation of the categories of
developing and developed countries
Emphasizes national strategies and actions thereby
permitting experimentation with inexpensive mitigation
options tailored to national circumstances and experiences
Ensures the substantive re-engagement of the US with the
climate regime
But….


The substantive re-engagement of the US was wrought at
considerable cost to the premises on which the Kyoto
Protocol is built, in particular leadership from developed
countries
Developed countries have the option in the Bali Action
Plan of taking commitments or actions, and these actions
may or may not include quantified emission limitation and
reduction objectives


Context: Annex I Parties (excluding economies in transition)
have increased their emissions by 11% from 1990 levels
IPCC requires developed countries to reduce emissions by
10-40% by 2020 and 40-95% by 2050 to achieve stabilization
levels of 450-550ppm CO2 eq
Challenges Ahead: the Road to
Copenhagen, 2009

Arriving at a “shared vision”
An acceptable level of temperature increase
(some increase being inevitable)
 A related stabilization target


Determining the scope of “national/international
action on mitigation”



Defining “developed country Parties” and “developing
country Parties” (and arriving at criterion to guide an
effort sharing architecture between them)
Defining “nationally appropriate”
Defining “measurable, reportable and verifiable”
Challenges Ahead

Determining the scope of national/international
action on mitigation”




Determining the role of “quantified emission limitation
and reduction objectives”
Determining the precise link between assistance and
actions required of developing countries
Determining benchmarks or criterion for success results or efforts?
Determining the relationship between the Kyoto
Protocol process (AWG-KP) and the FCCC
process (AWG-LCA)
Challenges Ahead

Enhanced Action on Adaptation

Enhanced Action on Technology


Removal of obstacles, and provision of incentives to
scale up development and transfer of technology to
developing countries
Enhanced Action on provision of financial
resources

Investment and financial flows to address climate change
Role of Developing Countries in
the post-2012 era



Measurable Reportable and Verifiable Nationally
Appropriate Mitigation Actions (MRV NAMAs)
 National Pledges - top down aspirational goals,
complemented by Sustainable Development Policies
and Measures (SD-PAMS)
 Focus on climatic co-benefits of development actions
and vice versa
Register of MRV NAMAs to be maintained by the
FCCC Secretariat – to ”Recognize and Reward”
“Review, Rethink and Revise” Mechanism - if this
voluntary self-election approach does not by 2016
indicate a trend or demonstrable progress towards 1530% below baseline by 2020 it will be time to rethink and
revise
Thank you