Download - University of Auckland Guest Lecture
COMMON IN DURBAN BUT DIFFERENTIATED IN PARIS?The Durban Platform and the rocky road through
Paris
OUTLINE: PART 11. Introduction: Who I am and what I’m talking about2. Background: the UNFCCC regime from 1992-20093. The 2011 Durban reset: ‘applicable to all’4. Negotiations from 2012-20145. Questions
BREAK
OUTLINE: PART 21. Negotiations this year: Geneva to Bonn to Bonn to
Bonn2. Key issues for Paris:
1. Differentiation2. Legal form3. Finance4. Loss and damage
3. Conclusion and questions
WHO I AM AND WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT
1. New Zealand lawyer
2. My research: Differentiation
3. Climate activist
When: 7:00 pm, Thursday 24 September 2015Where: ClockT032/105-032 theatre, University of AucklandWhy: The UN is about to adopt new Global Goals for ending poverty and protecting our environment
Bring your own torch! Snacks provided.
SpeakersBarry Coates, former Oxfam NZ executive directorJulie Anne Genter, Green Party MPAlex Johnston, Fossil Free UOADavid Tong, Fast for the Climate coordinatorDewy Sacayan, youth delegate to COP20
THE UNFCCC FROM 1992-2009
1. Rio 1992: The Convention
2. Berlin Mandate
3. Kyoto Protocol
4. Bali Action Plan
5. Copenhagen
THE CONVENTION (1992)The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of
equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating
climate change and the adverse effects thereof.- UNFCCC, art 3(1)
[…] taking into account [the UNFCCC Parties’] common but differentiated responsibilities and their specific national and
regional development priorities, objectives and circumstances […]- UNFCCC, art 4
BERLIN TO KYOTO (1995-1997)
‘In the developed world only two people ride in a car, and yet you want us to give up riding on a bus.’- Lead Chinese negotiator, COP 3 in Kyoto, 1997
• Berlin mandate imposed strict firewall of differentiation• Carried over into Kyoto Protocol
THE BALI ACTION PLAN (2007-2009)
1. Quantified emissions limitation and reduction objectives (QELROS) for Annex I Parties
2. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAS) for Non-Annex Parties
COPENHAGEN
Oh dear.
THE DURBAN RESET: APPLICABLE TO ALL
• New process launched.• Three key points:
1. an agreement ‘with legal force’2. ‘under the Convention applicable to all
Parties’3. to be agreed in 2015 and implemented from
2020
FROM DOHA TO LIMA• Repeated debates about equity and differentiation• Without prejudice ‘Intended Nationally Determined
Contribution’ process• Lima Call for Climate Action confirms Parties’ will be
differentiated – but how?
QUESTIONS AND BREAKComing up: 1. Negotiations this year: Geneva to Bonn to Bonn to
Bonn2. Key issues for Paris:
1. Differentiation2. Legal form3. Finance4. Loss and damage
3. Conclusion and questions
THE INDC PROCESS
• Bottom up commitments
• But not binding – without prejudice
• Due already, but ‘final’ deadline in October
GENEVA (JANUARY)
• A draft text
• But no ‘streamlining’
• 90 pages
• Contains the architectures of about five possible treaties
ADP 2.8 IN BONN (JUNE AND AUGUST)
• The ‘Chair’s Tool’
• Narrowing in towards agreement
• But still unsure: What’s in, what’s out, what’s where?
• Five days of negotiations before Paris in October.
NEGOTIATING DYNAMICS Ambitious / Cooperative
Lacking ambition, lacking cooperation
DevelopedDeveloping
NEGOTIATING DYNAMICS Ambitious / Cooperative
Lacking ambition, lacking cooperation
DevelopedDeveloping
Europe
Umbrella GroupLMDCs
BAS IC
LDCs
SIDS / AOSIS
KEY ISSUES NOW1. Differentiation2. Legal form3. Finance4. Loss and damage
DIFFERENTIATION
• Move towards self differentiation
• But details uncertain
AN EMERGING GENERAL PRINCIPLE?
‘14. The obligations of States are common but differentiated.’- Oslo Principles, 2015
‘In my view, the [common but differentiated responsibilities] principle is not necessary, and it is not helpful. […] To me, this notion is nowhere close to being either hard or soft law […]’
- Susan Biniaz, US Department of State, 2002
TWO ARCHITECTURES FOR MITIGATION COMMITMENTS
1. Top down• Idealised model of Kyoto Protocol• Protocol sets out each Parties’ commitment
2. Bottom up• Each Party sets their own target• Copenhagen Accord and Cancun Agreements
FIVE MODELS IN THE GENEVA DRAFT TEXT
1. Retain the current Annexes2. Draft new Annexes3. Emissions budget and equity reference framework4. Pledge and formal review5. Pledge and ‘chat’
RETAINING CURRENT ANNEXES
• Superficially reflects historical responsibility and respective capabilities
• Eight of the top ten per capita emitters are Non-Annex I
• Grubb: ‘[t]he world has changed much faster than the
UNFCCC’
DRAFTING NEW ANNEXES• Devil would be in the detail• Proposed by the US in Geneva in February• Politically impossible
• LMDCs and BASIC oppose• Russian proposal to amend Annexes stuck in
filibuster
EMISSIONS BUDGET AND EQUITY REFERENCE FRAMEWORK
• Proposed by AOSIS• Ecologically sound in theory• Diplomatically infeasible
PLEDGE AND REVIEW PLUS • May encourage participation• Will require compromises, but is a likely landing
point• Blends bottom-up and top-down elements• Review could be ex ante or ex post• Can build on existing review models
PLEDGE AND ‘CHAT’‘Parties know best their specific circumstances,
responsibilities, capacities and needs’- Switzerland, February 2015
• Winkler: ‘very unlikely’ to achieve ultimate objective• Parties self-assessments unlikely to have ethical basis• Opposed by G77+China in Geneva,
LEGAL FORM
• What goes where?
• What kind of treaty?
FINANCE AND LOSS & DAMAGE
• Finance: GCF and 2020 US$100bn pledge
• Loss and damage: operationalising Warsaw
FORECAST FOR PARIS• One of two pledge and review models• Need for formalised top down elements• Will need finance or loss and damage to get deal• If Parties cannot agree, may collapse into pledge
and chat• Unclear what will be in what kind of agreement, and
what will be in COP decision• And what of Workstream 2 on pre-2020?
QUESTIONS?
(Yes, that’s a negotiator sleeping)