Download EuropeAid EuropeAid

EuropeAid
Climate Change: from Copenhagen to Cancun
Hot Issues training
seminar 14 July,
Brussels
1
What is the problem with CC negotiations?
EuropeAid
= need to balance demands for equal OR
differentiated treatment between 3 key
players: US, BASIC and KP Annex B
• US requesting equal
treatment of BASICs
• Annex B’s want US and
BASICs on board
(competetiveness)
• DC: only outcome is
amendment of Annex B
for KP and set of COP
decisions on rest
2
What is the problem with CC negotiations?
(Cont)
EuropeAid
• Bali « solution » on future negotiations:
introduction of 2 distinct negotiation tracks:
AWG-LCA and AWG-KP
• AWG-KP: discussions around further reductions
• AWG-LCA: mitigation goals, shared vision for
adaptation, mitigation, technology and finance.
• Bali road map: COP decides to launch process to enable
implementation of the Convention through long term
cooperative action in order to reach an agreed outcome by
addressing actions on mitigation of CC including
1.b.i Measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate
mitigation commitments, including quantified emission
limitation and reduction objectives by all developed countries…
1.b.ii NAMAs by DC…in a measurable, reportable and verifiable
manner
3
What is the problem with CC negotiations?
(Cont)
EuropeAid
• CPH « problem »: how to link at the end of the process
again both tracks? What outcome of the LCA track: what
means « an agreed outcome »: legally binding?
Complementing, replacing KP? It became an « Accord »
• EU position: preference for one (combined) track but
willing to continue with KP track as long as there is
guarantee that « environmental integrity » of the
Convention is safeguarded. So need for US and BASICs
to agree in one way or another to verifiable reductions.
• Cancun: ??
4
The game and the players uncovered
EuropeAid
• The EU – “leadership” in question: Ambushed or
dignified? One Voice? Complexities relating to 27+1 
Lisbon Treaty an opportunity to re-assess EU’s way of
operating in international negotiations
• US – handicapped by domestic constraints
• BASIC – no compromise to growth
• G77 – severe internal identity issues
• AOSIS – right to exist
• ALBA - Bolivarian Alliance of Americas – resistance to
“capitalism”?
• Saudi Arabia – compensation for future losses?
5
The Copenhagen Accord…
EuropeAid
Includes many positive elements, e.g. gives basis for GHG
emission reduction commitments, MRV, technology
mechanism, the fight against deforestation, and financing
• Fast-start funding 2010-2012: about € 21 billion - EU
contribution € 7.2 billion. Long term financial needs around €
73 billion per year from 2020.
•
• All major emitters (US, China, India, Brazil, ..) onboard for
the first time
• 55 Parties with 78% of global emission associate with the
CPH Accord by 31 Jan. Annex I: reiterate pledges on the
table at COP15 (with the exception of Canada – lower
target!); Non-Annex I: important players submitted NAMAs
6
But falls short on key aspects…
EuropeAid
 Not legally binding
 Neither agreed process leading legally binding instrument
 No ambitious environmental outcome
(no timing for peaking nor 2050 ambition levels)
 Not sufficient mitigation pledges to meet the 2° Celsius
objective
7
What lies ahead?
EuropeAid
• UNFCCC negotiation time? Procedural meeting in Bonn in
April, AWG-LCA 9 and AWG-KP 11 in June, ? More discussion
early Aug in Bonn; China in Oct? COP16 in November in
Cancun.
• A single legally binding outcome: By COP16 in Mexico or
rather in 2011 in SA?
• Simple continuation of the Kyoto Protocol is not an option
• Outcome US legislative debate …
?
• Positioning of the ALBA countries
(Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Cuba)
• Other informal processes could remain important, e.g. G20,
G8, Major Economies Forum
8
What about agriculture? What is the issue?
EuropeAid
• General agreement that contribution of all sectors will be
needed if T° increase to stay below 2°C, incl agriculture
• Agriculture offers options for mitigation, adaptation,
development and food security
• Agriculture already part of negotiation process:
o AWG-KP: LULUCF accounting rules for Annex I countries
o CDM: reforestation projects are eligible;
o Main problem = establishment of baseline and
accounting rules and related costs: problems relted to
additionality, verification, leakage, permanence and
scale
9
What to expect from Cancun?
EuropeAid
• CDM: expansion of scope under discussion (croplandwetland- grazing land management, soil carbon
management…)
• Proposal to set up a work programme on agriculture (in DC)
under SBSTA to be launched in Cancun
• Diverse views on the content of future work on agriculture
(food sovereignty…)
• Resistance from G77 &China to engage in practical work
before Cancun – fear to prejudge outcome of AWG-LCA
negotiations
• The road to an effective integration of agriculture in UNFCCC
is still long!
10
Does this mean « wait and see » for us
dealing with project preparation?
EuropeAid
• NO: look for win-win options, mainly in adaptation:
• Further research and data gathering is a must
• Sustainable land use management: land and water
conserving techniques
• « vertical » agriculturual expansion rather than
« horizontal »: intensification (but without incr emissions)
• Crop diversification and drought resistance
• Mainstreaming of environment and CC in aid cooperation
projects and programmes
11
Fast start climate change finance…
EuropeAid
• Climate change finance to be “new and additional”
• Fast-start funding 2010-2012: about € 21 billion
• EU pledge and position:
o € 7.2 bn, for mitigation and adaptation (inc. technology)
o Provide a first report on its fast start by June 2010 in
Bonn
o All MS are to contribute – but still planning individual
allocations
o Existing initiatives will play key role to avoid delays
• Other developed countries put forward their pledges, and
started providing information – e.g. US (about 1.3 and 1.8bn
US$ for 2010 and 2011 respectively in grants)
12
EU priorities for fast start climate change
finance
EuropeAid
• Three key areas:
o Adaptation: increase knowledge base; integration;
implementation of urgent action, DRR
o Mitigation: capacity building for LEDS and MRV; carbon
market; REDD readiness
o Technology cooperation, to support action on
mitigation and adaptation, through capacity building and
pilot projects
13
The EC contribution uncovered
EuropeAid
• EC pledged €150m over the three years
• €50m in 2010, equal split between mitigation and adaptation
• Adaptation: €25m for the Global Climate Change Alliance,
bringing 2010 total to €49m
• Mitigation – work in progress, expected to cover: Low
Emission Development Strategies (LEDS); monitoring,
reporting and verification (MRV); REDD, Clean Carbon
Technologies (including CCS)
• For 2011, open! But expect to maintain the balance and
continue working on CB and paving the way for future
financial flows
14
Thank you for your attention
EuropeAid
15