Unesco Iheguptacopenhagen 091219133218 Phpapp02

UNESCO – IHEInstitute for Water Education

1

Institute for Environmental Studies; UNESCO IHE Institute for Water Education

Consensus in Copenhagen: Breaking the Institutional bottleneck

By Professor Joyeeta Gupta


The Developments so far

2

Period The paradigm Key outcomes1: Before 1990 Framing the problem 1979: First World Climate Conference

1988: Toronto Conference; Establishment of IPCC

1989: High level political conferences

1990: Second World Climate Conference; First Assessment Report of IPCC

2: 1991-1996 Leadership articulated 1992: Climate Change Convention

1995: COP-1 -- Berlin Mandate; AIJ

1996: Second Assessment Report of IPCC

3: 1997-2001 Conditional leadership 1997: COP-3 -- The Kyoto Protocol

2000: Third Assessment Report of IPCC

2001: COP-7 -- The Marrakech Accords

2001: US withdraws from Kyoto

4: 2002-2007 Leadership competition …....: US initiates many agreements

2005: Kyoto enters into force

2007: COP-13-- Bali Roadmap

5: Post 2008 Developing countries taking lead?

2008: Global recession starts

2009: COP-15 -- Copenhagen agreement?


3

Problem: leadership?

Leadershipparadigm

NS

Conditional leadership

Leadership sans US

EU

S

CEITSUS

JSCaNZ US

Leadership competition

Development

N

S

Pollu

tion

Inverted U curve may be a zig-zag curve

US EU

S


4

Climate change: Classical North-South issue

• In emission levels between average Northern and average Southern country especially in the past

• The bulk of the impacts until 2020-2050 are caused by past emissions of the developed world;

• If emission levels are to be kept within safe levels – the world budget for the 21st century is over by 2032.

• Impacts more severe in the South – both location wise; and because vulnerability is the greatest.


The climate convention

5

•T

National Com-munication

(12)

COP(7)

Secretariat(8)

SBSTA(9)

SBI(10)

Financialmechanism

(11, 21)

Amendment (15),Annexes (16),Protocols (17)

Resolution ofQuestions (13)

DisputeSettlement

(14)

Right to vote(18)

Other issues(19-26)

Entry intoforce (23)

Commitments(4)

Research & Observation

(5)

Education &public

awareness (6)

PreambleObjective (2)

Principles(3)

Annex I

Annex II

Definitions (1)

The Climate Convention, 92


6

The Kyoto Protocol, 97 Protocol

Preamble

Policies and measures -2

QUELRC -3

Joint fulfilment -4

Joint Imple-mentation -6

CDM -12

Financial mechanism

-11

Emission trading -17

Communi-cation -7

Implementexisting

obligations -10

Review of information

-8

Review ofProtocol -9

Non-compliance - 18

Dispute settlement

- 19

Other issues including entry

into force 20-28

Multilateralconsultativeprocess -16

COP-13Secretariat

- 14Subsidiary bodies - 15

Definitions -1Methods -5

Organisational framework


7

Parties to the Kyoto Protocol

-7% = O

•Em

issio

ns

•Time

-7% = -30%

X


Copenhagen (COP 15; COP/MOP 5): The process

• Process flowing from the Climate Convention– Includes US– Excludes all the agreements made at Kyoto

• Process flowing from the Kyoto Protocol– Excludes US– Follows up on the Kyoto agreements

• Process flowing from the Danish intervention– Ignores the integrity of the negotiating process– Tries to bypass and shortcut– Focuses on US interests

• New ABASIC (Africa, Brazil, South Africa, India, China) proposal in the wings

8


Copenhagen: The substance

• Long term target

• Targets for developed countries

• NAMAs: Nationally appropriate mitigation actions

• REDD: Reducing emissions from deforestation and land degradation

• Financial mechanism

9


Long-term target

Objective promoted by scientists/ NGOs

• - 80 % below 1990 levels by 2050

• 350 ppm CO2 eq.

• Peaking by 2015

UN secretariat hopes for:

• 50% below 1990 levels by 2050

• Peaking global emissions by 2025

10


Targets for developed countries

• EU: - 20% in 2020• Norway: - 40% in 2020• Japan: - 25% in 2020• US: - 4% in 2020

(-17% in 2020/2005)

11

• Pledges amount to 8-12% below 1990 levels

The problem: Conditional!!

Offset potential

Other loopholes


Impact of loopholes on 1990 Annex 1 emissions in 2020

12

Source: ECO, 10 Dec

Inclusion of loopholes means 4% reduction from 1990 levels


NAMAs for developing countries

• Brazil: 38-42% reduction in 2020• India: 25% energy efficiency target in 2020• Indonesia: 26% energy efficiency target in 2020• South Korea: 21-30% • China: 40-45% energy efficiency target

• First time willingness to take on commitments• Not absolute, but relative;• Governance system weak – so implementation

questionable!• Risk of double counting

13


REDD

• Forestry – about 20% of GHGs• How to reduce deforestation• Faith in market mechanisms!!• Goal for discussion:

– Half deforestation rate by 2020– Halt forest loss by 2030– Resources needed – 35 billion $ annually

14


Financial mechanisms

• Evolution of language – from compensation to subsidy

• Assistance for adaptation (seen as local issue!!!)• Assistance for mitigation

• Shift from climate assistance to mainstreaming climate change into development cooperation!

15


16

Arguments against using ODA: Political sensitivities

Development cooperation Climate assistance

1.0% of GNI

0.7% of GNI

Tim

eMainstreaming

Actual climate assistance

Expectations/ needsActual assistance

EU offer 2.4 billion per year, recycles ODA


17

Arguments against: Resources needed

Current ODA

Additional ODA needed for MDGs

ODA needed for Agenda 21

Aid for climate change

Total

USD billion

100 60-135 125 40-250 315-611

Comment

<0.4% of donor GNI

Clemens et al. 2007

Ch. 33, Agenda 21

Lit. OverlapsAssumptions


This lecture is premature: Everything happens last minute!

18

Source–The Economist, reprinted from Joe Romm (http://www.climateprogress.org) 23-11-2009

Date post:	26-May-2015
Category:	Education
Upload:	unam-facultad-de-contaduria-administracion-e-informatica
View:	327 times
Download:	0 times