Climate Year 2015Processes, Decisions, Actors & Outlook

Paris, May 4th 2015

Thomas Hirsch, Advisory Group on Climate Change Advocacy – ACT Alliance

2

WHY WE NEED A GLOBAL CLIMATE TREATY

• Carbon Dioxide concentration has increased in the atmosphere from 280 ppm (1860) to 400 ppm (2013) – the highest concentration since 800 000 years

• 1970 – 2004 GHG emissions increased by 70% and will increase by another 70% by 2050 if “Business as Usual (BAU)” continues

• To maintain a 50% chance to keep global warming below 2 degrees, an average global rate of de-carbonization of 5.1% per year until 2050 is needed while current de-carbonization of 0.8% remains far too low (5.1% wasn’t achieved in a single year since 1945, according to PWC Low Carbon Economy Index 2012)

• Why Paris matters: Global warming of 4°C without a global deal, of about 3°C with the currently expected low ambition deal, of about 2°C with a robust and rules based system

To close the climate gap we need a rules based treaty applicable to all major emitters1. China (25%),2. U.S. (18%),3. EU (13%)4. India5. Russia5. Indonesia6. Brazil7. JapanTop 15 = 75% of global emissionsG20 = 80% of global emissions

3

Emissions of E7 (Brazil, Russia, India, China, Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico) > G7100 vulnerable countries < 3% of emissions

4

Key Factor: Global phase out of fossil fuels by 2050

The role of the Paris Climate Agreement

1. Send a clear signal to business and the public that low carbon development is inevitable and an opportunity

2. Connect the climate agreement with the “real world”3. Provide transparency and accountability for country commitments4. Provide framework conditions to accelerate investment into low

carbon development while worsening framework conditions for the carbon intensive production & consumption

5. Proof equity and fairness of the agreement6. Ensure climate resilience, human rights and well being of climate

vulnerable people

The Paris Narrative

The Paris agreement to become a turning point for a transformational shift toward low carbon development (limiting global warming well below 2°C degrees), and improving climate resilience based on equity

Parties: 196 countries (all UN members, the EU, Nirue & Cook Islands), falling into 3 categories with different types of obligations: Annex 1 (OECD members in 1992 & economies in transition (EIT),i.e. Eastern Europe & Russia), with mitigation commitmentsAnnex 2 (OECD members in 1992) with climate finance commitmentNon-Annex 1, i.e. developing countries

Country Groupings: African Group (54) AILAC, AOSIS (43), BASIC (4), EU, Environmental Integrity Group, G77 + China, LDC (48), LMDC, Umbrella Group (8)

Observers: UN bodies (UNDP, UNEP, UNCTAD) & its specialized agencies (GEF, IPCC), 100 Inter-Governmental Organisations (IGOs like IEA, IPCC), 1600 Non-Governmental Organisations like from civil society, science, business, indigeneous, faith etc)

The UNFCCC negotiation framework:Over-complexity and outdated divide in country groupings

(North – South) not reflecting the current geopolitical situation make it easy for blockers to hinder the deal we

need

The ACT Position on Paris AgreementA treaty with a long term vision

Three Long Term Goals to bring transformational change1. Phasing out carbon emissions & universal access to

renewable energies by mid-century => keep 2 degrees C2. Ensure climate resilience to all people => adaptation / loss

& damage beyond adaptation3. Provide the necessary finance, technologies & knowledge

=> a new spirit of cooperation

The ACT Position on Paris AgreementA treaty based on rules

Transparency & Accountability on climate mitigation and finance1. Same reporting, monitoring and reporting rules for all

countries (GHG reduction & finance)2. Overall goals & MRV anchored in international law,

national targets anchored in national law; provide transparency and accountability for country commitments

3. Strong review and ratcheting up mechanism according to adequacy and equity of national contributions

The ACT Position on Paris AgreementA treaty to overcome vulnerability

No one should be left behind! Strong focus on the needs and rights of the most vulnerable => in adaptation, risk reduction and risk sharing and in low carbon development

1. National Adaptation and Risk Management2. National Low Carbon Development Strategies

Equity and justice => Every country to become climate champion – but developed countries and other major emitters obliged to take the lead (emission reduction and finance)

2014-15No break-through in negotiations despite positive developments in the real world

• Global mobilization around Ban Ki Mon Summit indicates: Climate change is back on the Global citizens’ agenda and green issues gain momentum

• The business sector and global investors has started to move! Climate change is considered as threatening megatrend and a more climate friendly energy business model is considered favorable by an increasing amount of investors and companies

• Political commitments of the 3 mayor emitters China, U.S., and EU with climate targets & will to take international responsibility

• Considerable finance commitments to the Green Climate Fund• Threatening megatrend of climate change confirmed by science• BUT: Climate talks driven by blockers and not by agents of change;

national egoisms and scepticism against UN rules based system

Paris crunch issues and how to address them bestMitigation: The level of climate ambition of the 3 major polluters China, U.S. & EU leads on the one hand to increasing efforts of fossil economies to block an ambitious deal – and is on the other hand not good enough to boost the new narrative of transformational change leading to an ambitious deal => Ambitious INDCs of many countries will help to name & blame free-riders

Finance: Relatively successful GCF pledging conference didn’t work as a trust-builder; lacking finance roadmap => Finance as potential deal maker – but more holistic approach needed, also addressing targeted instruments, new sources, private finance and safeguards

Climate resilience: Lack of political will of industrialized countries to support a robust climate resilience framework (adaptation and loss & damage)=> Resilience as alliance-builder across North-South-blocks against blockers

Rules based system: Maintaining the firewall (i.e. differentiation between Annex 1 & Non-Annex 1) with regard to transparency & accountability (MRV) in combination with a weak review mechanism leads to a pledge without review deal=> In an unequal world only robust rules can improve equity

Crunch issues – current views expressed in MEF meeting

On rules based system:Accountability/transparency: Take para 14 of Lima decision and replace “may” by “shall” or “Should”: “Agrees that the information to be provided by Parties communicating their intended nationally determined contributions, in order to facilitate clarity, transparency and understanding, may include, as appropriate, inter alia, quantifiable information on the reference point (including, as appropriate, a base year), time frames and/or periods for implementation, scope and coverage, planning processes, assumptions and methodological approaches = Extremely weak and hinders transparency and accountability

On ambition, fairness, racheting up & bindingness of emission reduction targets: -> Self-differentiation, no racheting up and nationally determined targets= Pledge without review

On climate resilience:Adaptation: Paris might include agreement on long-term target and improved implementationLoss and damage: WIM to continue and “compensation” may be considered as “solidarity issue”

INDCsDelivered (36): Andorra, EU member states (-40%+ by 2030, Gabun (-25% below BAU by 2025), Lichtenstein, Mexico (-25%+ below BAU by 2030), Norway (as EU), Switzerland, U.S. (-26-28% below 2005 by 2025), Russia (-25-30% below 1990 by 2030)Expected to deliver by June (14): Australia, Canada, Chile, Egypt, Japan, China,New Zealand, Singapore, Saudi-Arabia, Morocco, Armenia, Honduras, GeorgiaJordanExpected to deliver by September (11): Argentina, Brazil, India, Malaysia, Philippines, PNG, Cuba, Jamaica, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Guatemala Expected to deliver by October (12): Kuwait, Peru, Uzbekistan, Uruguay, Côte d'Ivoire, Sri Lanka, Israel, Ghana, Algeria, Indonesia, Thailand, EcuadorNo dates yet (10): Cameroun, Lebanon, Belarus, UAE, Maldives, Guyana, ParaguaySwaziland, Botswana, South KoreaLikely to deliver but now indication (14): Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali, Fiji, Gambia, Mali, Malawi, Ukrania, Mazedonia, Palau, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Viet Nam, Costa RicaNo indication: about 100 countries

The ProcessesApril: MEF showed positions, clarified expectations, negotiated crunch issuesMay – November: Ongoing informal negotiations and alliance-building at various occasionsJune: Inter-sessional to cut down the negotiation text and to set general pictureJune: G7 summit to set the tone and manage expectations/clarify commitments of G7 on long term goal, resilience, finance, carbon marketsJuly: Financing development conference to maybe clarify connects between developing and climate finance, to set the tone and to manage expectationsSeptember: ADP session to continue with text workSeptember: Post 2015 SDG conference – will clarify range for ambitionOctober/November: ADP/ministerial/maybe heads of State meeting: key decisions on legal form, main elements & negotiation textDecember: COP 21 in Paris - Fine-tuning and result communication: a Protocol, COP decisions, and a package of “Paris Solutions”

Mapping of key countries, their motivations & priorities

COUNTRY GROUP Rules based system Mitigation ambition Finance ambition Resilience ambition

CHINA Pledge no review Low ambition To stimulate South-South funding

Low ambition

U.S. Pledge no review Low ambition To boost private investments

Low ambition

EU Rules based system Medium ambition Medium ambition Low ambition

LDC Concerned not to be able to cope

High expectations High expectations Priority

AOSIS divided High ambition High expectations High expectations

AFRICAN GROUP divided No priority Priority Medium expectations

AILAC Rules based system Medium ambition Medium ambition Medium ambition

BASIC divided divided Annex I to deliver No priority

LIKE MINDED Maintain firewall Annex I to act Annex I to deliver Annex I to deliver

Power games and lack of understanding will probably lead to a weak agreement based on

an unbalanced architecture Summit model/Kyoto

Pledge model/Cancun

Weak top down package not providing the necessary rules:* Little transparency* No accountability* Weak review* Vague long term goal* Weak adaptation & loss & damage framework

Bottom up package:* Mitigation targets not ambitious enough* Weak incentives for increasing finance ambitionParis pledge without

review model

Lack of capacity in vulnerable countries further weakens their position at both ends, governments & NGOs

Lack of understanding of process, content and strategies/tactics in LDCs, SIDS & African Group dramatic => leads to passive role, seeking for others to speak on their behalf (LMDCs), weak networks, little bargaining power, frequent misconceptions, poor results and frustration

NGOS/CBOs from these countries are often even less well informed, more ideologically biased, and tend to build high expectations on severe misconceptions

Lack of Southern think tanks, access to well functioning networks and intense and trustful exchange between governments & CSOs are hindering factors in many countries

Recommendations: Scale up support for targeted capacity-building (training workshops, coaching,

briefing services, courses, e-learning) Develop a long-term strategy to address this structural deficit, including

supporting the creation of think tanks and a different exchange culture in DCs

Lesson learnt for civil society – address the real challenges and transform them into opportunities

• Don’t repeat the Copenhagen mistake – come to a realistic understanding of the process and the possible outcome and manage expectations properly

=> Paris can at best become a milestone but will not deliver the solution to the climate crisis nor will a top down approach work

• Create a narrative which is appropriate and stresses the opportunities of climate resilient and low carbon development rather than calling for salvation through a UNFCCC regime

• Understand the process and what decisions are taken where and when => the Paris outcome will be decided months ahead of the conference

• Adapt your advocacy approach accordingly and prioritize