The Copenhagen Accord: a significant ‘first step’ or a

disastrously missed opportunity?

Claire N Parker Environmental Policy Consultant

claire.n.parker@btopenworld.com

Outline • Background to a new global climate change

regime• Steps towards a new global regime• The UN framework for the negotiations• The Bali Action Plan • The debate 2007-2009

• Copenhagen: the process and the Accord • Analysis of the Accord • Who got what, who lost what • What may the CPH achieve. • What did it not achieve

Background to a new global climate change regime

The scientific analysis

• The IPCC is the recognised intergovernmental source of scientific advice

• Its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4 2007) forms the scientific basis for the current negotiations

• AR4 confirms average global temperature rise and other indicators of global warming

The scientific analysis

• The AR4 analyses the impacts for global average temperature changes

Why 2 degrees Celsius?

2°C

The scientific analysis

• The AR4 projects global surface warming for various emission scenarios

Non mitigation emission scenarios – projected t⁰ increases

22°C°C

Source: IPCC 2007

The scientific analysis

• The AR4 establishes a relationship between t⁰ increase and stabilisation concentrations of greenhouse gases (CO2 eq)

Important negotiation parameters1. Limit for increase in global average temperature

2⁰C2. Stabilisation concentration for greenhouse

gases in atmosphere 450 CO2 eq.

3. Mid term target (2020) 25-40% below 1990 by developed countries

4. Peak year for emissions 2010-20205. Long term target 50% below 1990 global

80-95% by developed countries

Caveat: post AR4 (2007) scientific findings less optimistic

• 2 ⁰C may be too high a temp increase, and 450ppm CO2eq. too high a concentration for avoiding dangerous climate change (e.g. sea level rise on small islands, impacts on corals1) increasingly, there are calls for 1.5⁰C and

350ppm CO2eq. Note : CO2 concentration is now 386ppm

• Moreover, at current emission levels, 4⁰C could happen by 2100 (UK MetOffice, Sept 20092)* NL publication on News in Climate Science3 reviews

post- AR4 science

(Slow) steps towards a new global climate regime

2007- 2009

The UN process: instruments

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Rio, 1992

• stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

Kyoto Protocol , 1997 • developed countries adopt binding emission

targets, amounting to -5% over 1990• first commitment period (CP 1) 2008- 2012

The UN process: 194 countries in negotiating blocs

G77 + China• AOSIS (small island states)• OPEC/Saudi Arabia• Latin America & Caribbean • African Group• LDC group• (Asian Group)

European UnionUmbrella Group (US, Japan, Canada, Norway,

Australia, New Zealand, Russia)Environmental Integrity Group (Mexico, Korea,

Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Monaco)

2007: a new post 2012 climate deal is needed

• The Kyoto Protocol’s 1st commitment period runs out in 2012

• The US, a major polluter and not a KP Party, needs to be brought into an agreement

• The emissions of major emerging economies in the developing world are rapidly rising

• The poorest and most vulnerable developing countries are already suffering from impacts and urgently need assistance to adapt

Dec 2007: two track negotiations given go-ahead

1. Bali Action Plan (BAP) on new global deal

• Mitigation• Adaptation• Finance and Transfer of Technology • Shared vision (an agreed long term 2005

mitigation target, or stabilisation goal…)

2. Renewed KP commitments post 2012

What does BAP envisage?• for developed countries: economy-wide

reduction commitments • for developing countries : nationally

appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs), supported by finance from developed countries

• Implementation of commitments, actions and support subject to monitoring, verification and reporting (mrv)

What does BAP envisage?• A specific regime for Reducing Emissions from

Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD)

• Use of market mechanisms • Adaptation framework • The basis for a financial mechanism that

provides new and additional finance • A mechanism to transfer low C technology to

developing countries • ……

2008-2009 debatewhat do developing countries want?

• Developing countries point to historical responsibility, to current per capita emissions, to technological and financial disadvantage, to development and poverty eradication prime goal

• They note lack of firm and sufficient reduction commitments from developed countries

• They want their NAMAs to be 100% voluntary, only mrv’d for externally financed action

• Target and goals for developed countries only• Rich nations should spend 0.5% of GDP on ‘climate

action’ in developing world

2008-2009 debatewhat do developed countries want? • Developed countries want developing

countries’ NAMAs registered, quantified, mrv’d

• They want major emerging economies to take on commitments – China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, Korea….

• They link financial support to mitigation results (except for poorest)

Debate on the reduction targets • EU commits to 20% reduction below 1990 by 2020

(30% if a satisfactory global deal is reached) and 80% by 2050

• Debate severely hampered by waiting for the US. Legislation passed by House June 09 incl. plans to cut emissions by 17% below 2005, which is 3-4% below 1990 – no firm international commitments

• All ‘US allies’ in Umbrella Group make late-in-the process commitments, conditional on developing countries’ mitigation action

Pledges and commitments • Australia (May 09): 15% below 2005 by 2020• New Zealand (Aug 09): 10-20% below 1990• Japan (Sept 09): 25% below 1990 • Norway (Nov 09) : 40% below 1990• Russia (Nov 09): 20- 25% below 1990

All these pledges are conditional on CPH deal involving all major emitters’ or, for Russia, ‘aspirational’ These + EU’s do not amount to the min 25% below 1990 advised by IPCC

In any case, caveat numbers • The Kyoto ‘model’ relies on aggregate

reduction numbers • It allows some of the reductions to come from – ‘flexibility’ mechanisms, i.e. action outside the

country which is then credited– accounting for carbon ‘sinks’ in the country itself

(forests, agriculture)• It hides changes in output, fuel conversion• It does not necessarily reflect the extent to

which the economy is being ‘decarbonised’

Bangkok, October 2009, coup-de-théâtre

• The US proposes a new regime which differs in its essence from the one envisaged so far:– replaces Kyoto Protocol– based on bottom-up pledges from countries

(developed and developing), as part of low C strategies, to be reviewed at [x-2?] years intervals

– puts a centralised mrv at its core: assessing results in terms of CC, plus economic considerations

‘Economic growth is inevitable, but that may change’George W Bush

• The US proposal is to create a ‘continuum’ between developed countries; major or ‘wealthy’ developing countries; the majority of the other developing countries; and the poorest (least developing countries, most African countries, the small islands)

• EU (reluctantly) agrees provided some modulation

• Developing countries reject- want to keep Kyoto, plus ??? vague about the rest

• Process is thrown off course, the ‘texts’ don’t progress, the positions harden

Copenhagen: the Process and the Accord

One month before CPHBarcelona, November 2009

• Still no agreement on US proposal/ keeping KP• Still no usable text(s) from BAP or KP

processes • Legally binding agreement in Copenhagen is

no longer possible. Instead , a politically binding agreement….……meaningless in legal terms but but still key to keep leaders accountable

• Decisions on a timetable for negotiating a legally binding agreement

A rush of targets from US and the major developing countries

• US: emission cuts 17% below 2005 by 2020 (eq. to 3-4% over 1990), 42% by 2030, 83% by 2050

• China: carbon intensity cut to 40 to 45% below 2005 by 2020

• India: carbon intensity cut to 20-25% below 2005 by 2020

• Brazil: emissions cut to 36-39% below 1994 by 2020 deforestation in Amazon cut by 80% by 2020• South Korea: emissions cut to 4% below 2005 by

2020 (eq. to 30% over BAU )

• Indonesia: emissions cut below the current emissions baseline (‘BAU’) of 26-41% by 2020 (cuts in deforestation a large part)

• Mexico: emissions cut below the current emissions baseline (‘BAU’) of 30% by 2020

• South Africa: emissions cut below the current emissions baseline (‘BAU’) of around 34% by 2020 and by around 42% by 2025.

In the absence of useable texts, a draft by the DK Presidency, which is leaked

and creates a diplomatic incident• Draft on limited number of core issues

(mitigation, finance) was the result of consultations with first 20, later 40 delegations, deemed key to the outcome of CPH

• Proposals in it were much in line with the developed countries’ (mainly US) concepts

• Called for commitments on emission reductions from developing countries

• Offered a (not overly generous) financial deal

Developing countries denounce DK draft

• Lack of transparency, biased Presidency, attempts to divide the G77/ China Group

• China, India, Brazil, and South Africa (BASIC) draw up ‘red lines’ beyond which they will not negotiate

• Africa, LDCs, SIDS get own controversies going• Three processes in parallel, drafts, counter-drafts…. positions

entrenched on all sides, disputes over procedure, walk-outs

*

The last 48 hours • Heads of State are now in CPH and want ‘results,

now!’• A group, deemed ‘representative’, of 20 HoS plus

9 other HoD negotiates an agreement, in parallel to wider negotiations

• Bilateral and smaller meetings in margins• Endgame is between US and BASIC countries,

mainly China• EU sidelined (‘not in the room’ when deal was

done)• Chinese concede on transparency- US drops long

term global goal, legally binding agreement, and offers money

The Copenhagen Accord emerges: what is in

• Aspirational 2⁰C target, ‘peak as soon as possible’

• A pledge-and-review process of – Quantified economy-wide emissions targets for

2020 by developed countries (yet to be filled in)– Nationally appropriate mitigation actions of

developing country Parties (yet to be filled in)

to be reported every 2 years

what is in (cont’d)• Full and robust, international mrv system for

developed countries, domestic mrv plus “international consultations and analysis” for developing

• Financial package of $30bn for 2010-11-12 and agreement on $100bn/yr by 2020, from public and private sources to assist developing countries to adapt, to reduce deforestation and to de-carbonize their development

• REDD regime to be established• A mechanism for North-South transfer of technology• Adaptation, with response measures• Use of markets

…and what is missing

• No quantified levels of collective ambition for emission reductions (2020, 2050). – but 2050 ‘goal’ to be reviewed 2015, incl.

consideration of 1.5⁰C limit

• No year for peaking of emissions • No deadline for/commitment to a legally

binding agreement –no compliance mechanism

At the very end, lack of consensus…. the ‘take note, opt in’ deal

• In plenary, a few countries (ALBA group and Sudan) question legitimacy of CPH Accord

• UNFCCC process adopts agreements by consensus: DK President feels COP cannot adopt CPH accord

• after a chaotic night, COP ‘takes note’ of the Accord

• countries will be asked to adhere to it, and to fill in their targets by 31 Jan 2010

Who got what? • The USA obtained much of what it wanted: bottom-up scheduling (pledges)

no compliance mechanism sufficient transparency from China et al.not tying Congress to financial deal

• However, USA could not change the ongoing differentiation between developed/ developing countries

• China had the upper hand, only concession being transparency (in exchange for securing financial aid for other, poorer developing countries and leaving any targets out). It reaffirmed (11 Jan) that it was satisfied w Accord and ‘had shown that it would not be pushed around’. It sees as essential for the US to make cuts ‘comparable of those of other developed countries’.

Who lost what? • EU lost its ‘leadership’: future regime likely to be

modelled on US vision – i.e. no ‘binding international commitments’ with compliance regime

• EU also lost the overall reduction ‘numbers’ by 2020 and 2050, but it got transparency and the prospect of US legislation

• All vulnerable countries lost security these numbers would have provided

• SIDS lost their quest for immediate action towards 1.5⁰C

What may the CPH Accord achieve?• If (1) Accord is signed by the majority of

countries, and targets/ action are sufficiently ‘strong’, (2) US legislation is passed in 2010 and (3) the financial promises are fulfilled and additional to development aid…

• …then the Accord will go some way to harness the potential of developed and developing countries to address climate change

• It will leverage substantial finance for developing countries, including for halting deforestation and protecting forests

The CPH Accord does not achieve sufficient and rapid response to the

climate crisis In addition: • Business lacks the regulatory certainty to drive

low C investment • The ‘multilateralist’ approach to the climate

change issue and the credibility of the UNFCCC process are damaged

• CPH confirmed the ‘new bipolar order’ whereby the US has to share hegemony w China

• the EU, India, Russia, Japan relegated to ‘second league’ players and lost the initiative

Projected result of current mitigation pledges

See Climate Action Tracker developed by Climate Analytics, Ecofys and the P I K

• http://www.climateactiontracker.org

References

1. Obura, D et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58 (2009) 1428–14362. h

ttp://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/four-degrees.html

3. News in Climate Science and Exploring Boundaries, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), Bilthoven, November 2009, PBL publication number 500114013

4. Slide 23 UNEP/GRID-Arendal, National carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per capita, UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library, http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/national_carbon_dioxide_co2_emissions

Thank you