Legal scope, structure and design of the 2015 agreement
The scope, structure and design of the 2015 agreement should be consistent with a 1.5ºC global carbon budget with high likelihood of success, including targets and actions within an equitable framework that provides the financial, technology and capacity building support to countries with low capacity. It should be serious about ensuring sufficient support for dealing with the unavoidable impacts of climate change. It should be built on, developing and improving the rules already agreed under the Kyoto Protocol and the Convention including transparency through common and accurate accounting and effective compliance processes, respecting the principles of equity. The form of the 2015 agreement should be a fair, ambitious and legally binding protocol.
Kyoto Protocol as a basis for the ADP
The Kyoto Protocol provides a good basis for future Protocol, its rules have been tested and should be improved and built upon. Existing elements of the Kyoto Protocol that provide a basis for the new Protocol include:
· Long-term viability: the KP provides a framework that can be updated for each 5-year commitment period, while maintaining its essential elements
· Top down approach, setting an overall objective, an aggregate goal, for developed countries, allowing appropriate consideration of the science, with comparability of effort between countries established through their respective targets (Article 3.1)
· Legally binding, economy-wide, absolute emissions reduction targets (QELROs) for countries with high responsibility and capacity, expressed as a percentage below the 1990 base year (Annex B)
· A system of 5-year commitment periods, with comparability of effort measured against a common base year allowing for reasonable cycles of review linked to the IPCC reports and for comparability of effort (Articles 3.1 and 3.7). A commitment regime under the new 2015 agreement should set at least two 5-year commitment periods, so that there are clear consequences in the already-agreed second period for failure to comply with the first 5-year target, and so that a next set of two 5-year targets is in place before the first 5-year period expires. The system should include an adjustment procedure similar to the adjustment procedure under Article 2.9 of the Montreal Protocol that is restricted to increasing ambition. This adjustment procedure should allow both unilateral real increases in ambition by a country and for a ratcheting up of all countries resulting from an adequacy review.
· Monitoring, review, and international verification system (Articles, 5,7,8 and associated decisions)
· Compliance mechanism composed of two tracks – facilitative and enforcement (Article 18). Compliance with the new 2015 legally binding outcome will depend in large part on effective *domestic* compliance processes, which can be facilitated by sharing of domestic best practices in compliance design. This will in turn facilitate better compliance with international obligations.
· Mandatory review of provisions of the Protocol for subsequent commitment periods (Article 3.9)
· Supplementarity – ensuring that market or non-market mechanisms are supplementary to (ie, CDM) to domestic actions, and don’t undermine the fundamental need to decarbonize all economies (Article 6.1d)
· Required reporting on ”demonstrable progress”, establishing an important reporting requirement and stocktaking (Article 3.2)
· Basket approach to GHGs, and the ability to list new gases and classes of gases (Annex A)
· Use of Global Warming Potentials (GWP) to allow comparability of the impacts of different gases on global warming (Article 5.3)
The Equity Reference Framework
Equity is back on the negotiating table, and this is no surprise. Climate change negotiations under the UNFCCC were never going to succeed unless they faced the challenge of “equitable access to sustainable development.” Unless they faced, more precisely, the equity challenge of not just holding to a 2°C or even 1.5°C-compliant global emission budget but also supporting sustainable development and adaptation. These are the preconditions of any successful climate transition.
As the road to the 2015 agreement is beginning to be paved brick by brick, ECO wants to help Parties by giving them a direction in which this road should be built. Parties will be making submissions around how to further develop and operationalise the ADP work program. Here are a few questions that Parties should address in their submissions, which will help us to get closer to a fair, ambitious and binding deal.
How could the principles of the Convention be operationalised into objective criteria and indicators to guide countries in seeking to identify their fair and adequate contributions to the globally needed mitigation effort and adaptation support and provision of the means of implementation?
What could be the suitable timelines up to 2015 to a) identify objective ex-ante criteria to develop an agreed list of indicators for identifying each country’s fair efforts, b) for countries to submit initial mitigation and finance commitments and c) assess and revise commitments based on the ex-ante agreed list of indicators?
What should be the global carbon budget and subsequent long term emission pathways indicative of emission levels at 2025, 2030 and 2050?
What information should Parties include about their targets and commitments in order to allow individual and aggregate assessment against adequacy and equity, including their views about a timeline that allows for this assessment and revision of targets well before COP21?
How to raise the level of ambition for developed countries’ 2020 targets?
How to close the pre-2020 ambition gap through advancing concrete solutions?
How should Parties scale up public finance for adaptation and ensure at least USD 50bn international public finance annually?
How are Parties going to deal with inter-connectivity between lack of mitigation ambition and increased need for adaptation, along with addressing loss and damage?
How to assess overall financial needs, as well as the links between the scale of financial needs for adaptation, the scale of loss and damage likely to be incurred and the level of mitigation ambition?
How do Parties see progress on applying both “polluter pays” and the principle of CBDR to generate new streams of finance?
What issues related to technology support need to be addressed by the ADP and how can technology transfer best leverage increased ambition?
*By compromise, ECO mean somewhere in between what is scientifically needed and what YOU tell us is currently feasible.
The Conference of the Parties,
Recalling Article 4, paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 5 and 7 of the Convention,
Reaffirming the unwavering commitment of parties to keep global average temperature increase well below 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels and the continuum approach between mitigation, adaptation, loss & damage and finance that is required to ensure equity before 2020.
Reaffirming the urgency to address the current imbalance in mitigation and adaptation finance – in light of recent studies showing the adaptation and loss and damage costs in developing countries will very likely be well in excess of US$100 billion per year by 2020.
Reaffirming the need to raise mitigation ambition levels between now and 2020, and achieving emission reductions on the order of 8-13 Gigatonnes of emissions in the pre-2020 period, beyond existing commitments and actions registered under the UNFCCC.
Supporting the authoritative assessments demonstrating that staying well below 2°C will require several hundred billion of incremental finance per year and the shifting of trillions of dollars of existing private sector investments into low carbon technologies and solutions.
Emphasising that the commitment by developing countries to provide $100 billion for developing countries will be delivered in the form of new and additional public finance, through budgetary allocations from developed countries, supplemented by revenues from alternative sources of public finance
Emphasising the shortcomings of the main revenue stream for the Adaptation Fund in relation to the expected low price of CERs under the Clean Development Mechanism and the need for new and additional commitments by developed countries.
1. That developed country Parties shall provide jointly new and additional public finance amounting to an average of US$20 billion annually for the period 2013-2015, for mitigation and adaptation actions, including for REDD, technology and capacity building.
2. That for the periods of 2016-2018 and 2018-2020, developed country parties shall scale up financing in a linear manner from the current levels to reach $100 billion annually in public finance by 2020.
3. That developed countries shall allocate at least 50% of overall public finance to meeting developing country adaptation needs.
4. To establish a formal process to capitalise the GCF with an initial collective pledge of (…)** by COP19.
5. To call on the relevant bodies to design and implement global measures to raise new streams of public climate finance, particularly through:
i) Redirection of at least 100% of Annex 2 fossil fuel subsidies
ii) Carbon pricing mechanisms applied to the international aviation and maritime transport - in accordance with the principal of CBDRRC and existing commitments under the UNFCCC.
1. The pledges to the Adaptation Fund of (…)** collectively made by Annex 2 Parties for 2013/2014, as contained in Annex C of this decision, and those made by other Parties.
2. The initial pledges to the Green Climate Fund of (…)** collectively made by Annex 2 Parties as contained in Annex D of this decision.
3. The recent declaration by 11 EU Finance Ministers to earmark at least 100% of the revenue raised through their Financial Transaction Tax to the Green Climate Fund.
** "there is not enough space on this page to specify the number of billions ECO is expecting"
For official CAN positions, please refer to www.climatenetwork.org
Sixbert Simon Mwanga
Climate Action Network-Tanzania
Climate technologies and technology transfer are very cruacial in the whole process of addressing climate change in developing countries and Africa in particular. It was recognized at the IPCC Supplementary report to Assessment Report 1 (AR1) in 1992 that there is a need to develop the most potent climate technologies and create enabling environments for these technologies get diffused, optimally, to both developed and developing countries to achieve a sustainable development corridor. In the Convention as well, it has been identified that developed countries have the obligation to provide technology support to developing countries. Climate technology is considered to be a redemption for developing countries which are already suffering from climate change impacts with little hope for their futures.
It has taken more than a decade for parties to consider assuring appropriate institutions for technology assistance to adress the needs of already distressed countries. It is worth knowing that while parties, and especially Annex 1 parties, continue to delay the process through procedural actions, the actual lack of commitment to financial flow, and failure to address Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), capacity building as well as institutional arrangements, the climate has never stopped its track toward a worse conclusion.
The need for transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology (EST) and financial resources to developing and poor countries in support of susatainable developments has been considered to be important since Rio, but they are yet to be attained. For more than 20 years, since Rio, little if nothing has been done to facilitate the transfer of EST to the global south. The people of the global south have suffered a lot, their survival is at risk, and they are unhappy with the failure to properly address the development, transfer and diffusion of EST.
This happened despite creating instituions and mechanisms for the global technology cooperation after years of time-consuming negotiations in the various exotic venues of the cities of the world. In the meantime, the rise of incidence of extreme events and losses of both human and physical assets went on increasing, thereby leaving the most vulnerbale people of the world at the mercy of the nature. This cannot be the addressal mechanism, we need quick, effective and smooth cooperation of technoligies to address the urgency of climate actions.
Please facilitate quick action by shortening your procedural businesses!
At successive UNFCCC meetings, Parties have acknowledged the existence of a multi-gigatonnes gap between the current level of ambition to mitigate emissions until 2020 (expressed in QELROs, pledges, targets and NAMAs) for the period until 2020 and what is required in that period to allow the world to stay below the critical 1.5/2°C threshold. According to the Climate Action Tracker, current pre-2020 ambition (expressed by countries in QELROs, pledges and NAMAs) puts the world onto a path of 2.7-4.2°C warming. There is a consensus within the scientific community that we are fast approaching a devastating tipping point. In this context it is alarming that governments have not taken any steps yet to close the gap but allow it to grow. According to UNEP, the estimated emissions gap in 2020 for a “likely” chance of being on track to stay below the 2°C target is 8 to 13 GtCO2e, while it was 6 to 11 GtCO2e in the 2011 report. Global emissions are currently 14 per cent above where they should be to have a likely chance to limit global warming to no more than 2°C.
The UN climate talks failed to deliver increased cuts to carbon pollution, nor did they provide any credible pathway to $100 billion per year in finance by 2020 to help the poorest countries deal with climate change, according to the 700 NGOs who are members of Climate Action Network-International (CAN-I).
Two weeks ago, just prior to the start of these negotiations, numerous credible reports were published by an array of well respected scientists, economists and climate change experts, all with essentially the same conclusion - we are currently on an unsustainable path which virtually guarantees the world will be faced with catastrophic effects from climate change, according to Greenpeace International executive director, Kumi Naidoo.
“Two weeks of negotiations have not altered that path and that politicians need to reflect the consensus around climate change through funds, targets and effective action."
WWF head of delegation, Tasneem Essop, said Doha was supposed to be an important element in setting up for a fair, ambitious and binding deal in 2015 and therefore needed to rebuild trust and instill equity.
“These talks have failed the climate and they have failed developing nations,” Essop said. “The Doha decision has delivered no real cuts in emissions, it has delivered no concrete finance, and it has not delivered on equity.”
Governments have delivered a very vague outcome that might lead to increased ambition but only if the politics shift to working for the people, our future, and not the polluters.
In particular, countries including the US, who have continually blocked progress in the talks, need to fundamentally change their positions in line with their obligation to lead on the solution to this crisis that they created.
Tim Gore, International Climate Change Policy Advisor for Oxfam, said Doha had done nothing to guarantee that public climate finance would go up next year, not down.
“Developing countrieshave come here in good faith and have been forced to accept vague words and no numbers,” Gore said. “It's a betrayal.”
Wael Hmaidan, director of CAN-I, said that ministers needed to go back to their capitals and work hard to put concrete proposals on the table for the next talks so that progress could be made towards to secure a fair, ambitious, and binding deal in 2015.
“The path forward is actually quite clear: we have the technology and know-how to reduce dangerous carbon pollution, protect vulnerable communities, and grow sustainable, resilient, economies.”
“But we also need people in all regions of the world to demand leadership from their governments on climate change – just like the new youth movement in the Arab region has done.”
The Doha Decision:
- An extraordinarily weak outcome on climate finance which fails to put any money on the table or to ensure a pathway to the $100 billion a year by 2020 target. The decision asks for submissions from governments on long term finance pathways, calls for public funds for adaptation but does not mention a figure, and encourages developed countries to maintain funding at existing levels dependent on their economies.
- An eight year second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol with loopholes that allow carry over, use and trading of hot air
- A call – though not an official ambition ratchet mechanism - for Kyoto Protocol countries to review their emissions reduction target inline with the 25-40% range by 2014 at the latest. While it could have been stronger, the decision reinforces clear moral obligation for countries to increase their emission reduction targets prior to 2020 and provides opportunities for them to do so
- An agreed work program on loss and damage to help victims of climate change will start immediately anda decision “to establish institutional arrangement, such as an international mechanism, at COP19”
- Developed countries failed to agree a way to account for their carbon in a comparable way
Climate Action Network (CAN) is a global network of over 700 NGOs working to promote government and individual action to limit human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels.
For more information, please contact CAN International Communications Coordinator Ria Voorhaar, email: firstname.lastname@example.org, local mobile: +974 33 38 6907.