possible elements of a 2015 agreement on climate change - cop19
Post on 23-Jan-2015
13.389 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Possible elements of a 2015 legal agreement on climate change
Side event
“Mitigation commitments in the 2015 agreement”
Wednesday, 13 November, 2013
Erik Haites (Margaree Consultants)
Farhana Yamin
(University College London & Chatham House)
Niklas Höhne
Ecofys (n.hoehne@ecofys.com) & Wageningen University)
Similar events
Making Nationally-determined Contributions Operational and
More Ambitious
> Saturday, 16 November, 16:00-17:30, Japan Pavilion
> Speakers include: Jennifer Morgan or Kelly Levin (WRI), Kentaro
Tamura (IGES), Niklas Höhne (Ecofys) and others
Squaring the Circle of Mitigation Adequacy and Equity -
Options and Perspectives
> Monday, 18 November, 16:45-18:15, UNFCCC side event room
Wroclaw
> Speakers: Wolfgang Sterk (Wuppertal Institute), Fraunhofer ISI,
Oeko-Institute, Niklas Höhne (Ecofys), Marion Vieweg (Climate
Analytics)
Comprehensive list: http://www.ecofys.com/en/event/unfccc
Experience from the past on mitigation
commitments
> Diverse: Pledges are very diverse (economy wide targets to
individual projects)
> Ambiguous: Pledges often were ambiguous and had to be
clarified
> 2°C: Some pledges are influenced ranges needed for 2°C
– Japan -25%, Norway -40%, Mexico and South Korea 30%
below BAU…
> National: Some pledges are also primarily driven by national
discussions
– EU, USA, …
> Unchangeable: Pledges once made did not change
– No major economy has changed its pledge of 2009, although
the gap is widely accepted
– Even countries that will over-achieve their pledge (new
circumstances or more information) do not change it
Name 5
Paper
Possible Elements of a 2015
Legal Agreement on Climate
Change
Erik Haites; Farhana Yamin; Niklas
Höhne
Working Papers N°16/2013. Iddri,
2013. 24 p.
> Proposal on a package of
possible elements of a 2015 legal
agreement
> Tried to find an effective new
landing ground that is “hybrid” -
avoiding sterile debate between
“top-down” and “bottom-up”
approaches
> Proposal is entirely the authors
responsibility
Overview & background
Mitigation
> Legal gap in UNFCCC: fundamental weakness is lack of clear
binding commitment for any Party to reduce GHGs
Ambition
Joint goal of all Parties to phase out anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050
Register of mitigation actions by non-state entities
Nationally proposed 2020-23 commitments consistent with the phase
out goal based on self selected equity principle
Mitigation – phase out goal
> “All parties to the 2015 Agreement commit, jointly and
individually, to a goal of phasing out anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions, with a target of net zero emissions
by no later than 2050, and to take additional action until this goal
is achieved.” This addresses fundamental legal gap relating to
mitigation for long term.
> Very low levels of greenhouse gas emissions are required to
stabilize atmospheric concentrations at any level
> Scenarios show that 2050 phase out date is ambitious but
technically and economically feasible
See also:
Höhne et al. 2013, Feasibility of GHG emissions phase-out by mid-
century, http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-2013-feasibility-ghg-phase-out-2050.pdf
Mitigation – individual commitments
Proposal:
Commitment and
equity principle
Technical review
and questions
Final 2020-23 Commitment
More ambitious 2024-27
commitment
Sufficient?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Parties propose national commitments
• For 2020-2023
• Consistent with net zero phase out goal
• Free on nature of its national commitment, but expressed
as a change to observed emissions or policies
• With equity principle(s) used to determine the fair
contribution to the global effort
A party may raise the
ambition level of its
commitment at any
time
• Subsequent periods automatic
• Commitments determined in same way but must
be more ambitious
Not in the proposal
• Commonly agreed equity reference
framework
• Categories of parties
Inclusiveness
> The national commitment of a country that is not a party to the
agreement can be “recognized” subject to criteria such as
equivalent stringency of both mitigation and financial
commitments and acceptance of the reporting and international
review arrangements that apply to parties
> “Recognition” is a COP decision based on advice from the
Compliance Committee
> Possible internationally agreed border adjustments on imports of
emissions-intensive goods from non-parties with no recognized
national commitment
> Border adjustment is a COP decision based on advice from the
Compliance Committee. Experience shows these would rarely, if
ever, be used
Alternative processes to determine commitments
(not part of this proposal) I
Equity Reference
Framework (optional)
Proposals
Negotiations
Review
of aggregated
proposals
Individual review
Fixing in agreement
Ratchet up (optional)
Sufficient?
YesNo
Sufficient?
Yes No
Agreed?
Yes
No
Alternative processes to determine commitments
(not part of this proposal) II
> Separate proposal on type and proposal
on level
> Allows to indicate order of magnitude
commitment without determining a fixed
number
See Benito Müller and Niklas Höhne: A Staged Approach:
The sequencing of mitigation commitments in the post-
2020 ADP negotiations
http://jusharma.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/a-staged-
approach-the-sequencing-of-mitigation-commitments-in-the-
post-2020-adp-negotiations-2/
Proposals on type of
commitment and equity principle
Negotiations
Fixing in agreement
Informal assessment of commitment
levels
Proposals on level of
commitment
Elements of process for mitigation commitments
Source: Differentiated mitigation commitments in a new climate agreement Niklas Höhne, Hanna Fekete, Christian Ellermann and Sandra Freitas
Conclusions
> We present one way in which a balanced but
effective agreement can be constructed
Mitigation commitments balance
> Very ambitious and clear phase out goal
> Nationally determined commitments
– With justification
– In line with phase out goal
Ambition
Joint goal of all Parties to phase out anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050
Register of mitigation actions by non-state entities
Nationally proposed 2020-23 commitments consistent with the phase
out goal based on self selected equity principle
Backup slides
Mitigation – phase out goal
Several scenarios available
(more soon available for the in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report)
Source Höhne et al. 2013, Feasibility of GHG emissions phase-out by mid-century,
http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-2013-feasibility-ghg-phase-out-2050.pdf
Mitigation – phase out goal
Source: Höhne et al. 2013, Feasibility of GHG emissions phase-out by mid-century,
http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-2013-feasibility-ghg-phase-out-2050.pdf
MRV and compliance
> Parties agree on accounting rules relating to emissions and support to
avoid double counting and to ensure transparent and comparable
treatment of land use change and forestry
> All parties prepare and submit annual inventories, biennial reports and
national communications using the agreed methodologies and formats for
developed country parties beginning no later than 2020.
> Methodologies & formats may need to be revised to cover the range of
commitment types adopted and updated calculations of the party’s fair
share of the global emission reduction target based on the equity
principle(s) it proposed
> Lighter reporting requirements are developed for LDCs and parties whose
annual GHG emissions are less than 0.1% of global total (96 parties)
> All reports are subject to international expert review analogous with the
Kyoto Protocol process
> The Compliance Committee is transferred from the CMP to COP with its
mandate and composition adjusted as necessary
Adaptation
> Adaptation is given greater financial and institutional resources
across the UN
> UNSG establishes a high level panel to report in early 2015 on
how adaptation, disaster risk reduction, security implications, loss
and damage and other long term issues can be addressed and
financed in an integrated manner across the UN/UNFCCC
> Relevant recommendations of the panel are incorporated into the
2015 Agreement
> May involve guidance to the Adaptation Committee
> Review of adaptation arrangements in 2017
Finance
> Each biennial review by the Standing Committee on Finance
serves as the basis for a COP decision on climate finance to be
mobilized by parties
> Each party’s contribution is calculated using the UN scale of
assessment at the time
> Parties continue to have discretion over the channels used for
their financial contributions
Technology and Capacity Building
> The Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and Climate
Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) guide development and
diffusion of technology under the Convention with funding from
operating entities of the financial mechanism of the Convention
subject to COP decisions
> Capacity building needs and strategies are determined by
thematic area based on national input
> Programmes to implement the capacity building strategies are
fast tracked for approval and funding by operating entities of the
financial mechanism of the Convention based on COP guidance
Market mechanism
> Convention does not contain a market mechanism. New
agreement should enable Parties that want to use such
mechanisms to benefit from linking with others.
> A party that wishes to sell emission units establishes a domestic
emissions trading and/or offset crediting system
> A new market mechanism body certifies allowances and credits
that meet specified criteria (e.g. is meeting its commitment) as
international units. Only international units transferred via the ITL
can be used for compliance with national commitments
> The new market mechanism body takes over any remaining
functions of the CDM Executive Board and JI Supervisory
Committee
Legal form
> New agreement should solve the fundamental legal gap in the UNFCCC
which is lack of binding mitigation commitments for all Parties. The new
agreement therefore needs to have a binding form in respect of
mitigation commitments
> Our proposal is a mix of a long term quantitative binding goal (net zero)
plus binding shorter term targets as well as qualitative commitment to
keep taking more stringent mitigation action until Article 2 is achieved
> The new agreement should legally “upgrade” reporting & MRV so that it
is binding for all Parties (with discretion for LDCs and those with <1%
emissions)
> Some elements relating to finance & technology would also need to be
legally upgraded
> The final legal form of the agreement may need to be a mix of legal
instruments including for example, amendments to the Convention,
amendments to the Kyoto Protocol, a new protocol, legal instrument or
agreed outcome with legal force as well as COP and CMP decisions.
Conclusions
> A well designed agreement would command widespread adherence and trigger early action leading to lower compliance costs of the global transition to a non-GHG dependent pathway
> A poorly designed agreement might do the opposite
> The way rights and obligations are crafted and balanced against one another, as well as how trade-offs are constructed across topics such as mitigation, adaptation and resources for implementation, will be critical for an agreement and for other negotiations
> We present one way in which a balanced but effective agreement can be constructed. Many elements could be elaborated further and would benefit from additional research
> We hope it provides a useful input to the process of negotiating an agreement in 2015
Energy related CO2 emissions in phase out
scenarios
> Option 1: Very high energy efficiency and near 100% renewables, no CCS
(bottom up scenarios)
> Option 2: Less efficiency, significant bio CCS (Integrated Assessment Models)
Non-CO2 emissions in phase out scenarios
GHG emissions today
Source: Ecofys, based on IEA and EDGAR databases
top related