how$to$enhance$the$effec-veness$of$ internaonal$regime$on$climate… · 2014-09-17 · •...
TRANSCRIPT
How to Enhance the effec-veness of Interna-onal Regime on Climate Change:
Challenges Towards Post-‐2020
Yukari TAKAMURA (Nagoya University) September 2, 2014
e-‐mail: [email protected]‐u.ac.jp
1
• State of affairs of climate nego-a-ons • What would be key components for enhancing the effec-veness of climate regime beyond 2020?
2
Brief History of Climate Nego-a-ons • 1988 Establishment of IPCC • 1992 United Na-ons Framework Conven-on on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) adopted (entry into force in 1994) • 1995 COP1: Berlin Mandate adopted • 1997 Kyoto Protocol (KP) adopted • 2001 Marrakesh Accords (implementa-on rules) adopted • 2005 Entry into force of the KP; Nego-a-on under the KP (AWG-‐KP)
started • 2007 Bali Ac-on Plan adopted; Nego-a-on under the UNFCCC (AWG-‐
LCA) launched • 2009 COP15: Copenhagen Accord (not adopted by COP) • 2010 COP16: Cancun Agreements • 2011 COP17: Durban Placorm Agreement, launching nego-a-on on
post 2020 regime • 2012 COP18:Doha Climate Gateway • 2013 COP19(Warsaw) • 2014 COP20(Lima) • 2015 COP21(Paris)
3
Review of long term target (2013-‐15)
2012 2015 2014 2013 2020
Nego-a-ons toward a new instrument From 2020
Ac-ons to be taken up to 2020
C O P
18
C O P
21
K P
Implementation of CA
Finish work by 2015�Start in the 1st half of 2012�
IPCC AR5
CA AWG-LCA
Completed in COP18
AWG-KP
1st CP (〜2012)
Completed in COP/MOP8
第2拘束期間(2013年〜2017年or2020年)�2nd CP (2013〜2020)�
AWG on Durban Platform (ADP)
Ra-fica-on by countries
Pledges of targets by countries and interna-onal review (MRV); Adapta-on, finance, technology, CB
Implementation of 2020 target and Itinerary toward a new legal instrument, to start from 2020
Source: Takamura based on MOE �
Entry into force and
opera-onaliza-on
Compliance assessment of 1st CP
Adop-on
4
Nego-a-on toward a 2015 agreement (1)
• “Launch a process to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Conven-on applicable to all Par-es” (1/CP. 17) – “a protocol” – “another legal instrument” – “an agreed outcome with legal force”
• Legal bindingness of the instrument might remain controversial while majority of countries prefer legally binding one.
5
2013年 2015年 2014年 2020年
Negotiation Continues?
Negotiation up to 2015 (COP21)
Source:Takamura �
ENTRY
INTO
FORCE and IM
PLEMEN
TATION�
ADOPTION
6
C O P 20
UN SUMMIT
����� ������
�LI
MA
PERU�
C O P 21 PARIS�
SEP C
O P 19
Elabora-on of elements of nego-a-ng text
Elabora-on of N. text
Prepara-on and communica-on of intended na-onally determined contribu-ons
Ex ante consulta-on
?
Nego-a-on
WARSAW�
MAR ADP�
JUN ADP�
OCT �ADP
Ra-fica-on?
May: Nego-a-on
Text
Early 2015: Submission of intended
contribu-on
Nego-a-on toward a 2015 agreement(2)
• Establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Placorm for Enhanced Ac-on (ADP) – ADP shall complete its work as early as possible but no later than 2015 in order to adopt this protocol ... at COP21 (2015) and for it to come into effect and be implemented from 2020.(1/CP. 17)
• COP19 (2013) decided that the ADP will consider elements for a drak nego-a-ng text no later than at COP20 (2014), with a view to making available a nego-a-ng text before May 2015.(2/CP. 18)
7
Nego-a-on toward a 2015 agreement(3)
• “To invite all Par-es to ini-ate or intensify domes-c prepara-ons for their intended na-onally determined contribu-ons, without prejudice to the legal nature of the contribu-ons, … and to communicate them well in advance of the twenty-‐first session of the Conference of the Par-es (by the first quarter of 2015 by those Par-es ready to do so)…;”(1/CP.19, para. 2(b))
• “To request the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Placorm for Enhanced Ac-on to iden-fy, by the twen-eth session of the Conference of the Par-es, the informa-on that Par-es will provide when punng forward their contribu-ons, without prejudice to the legal nature of the contribu-ons, referred to in paragraph 2(b) above;” (1/CP19, para. 2(c))
8
Challenges for climate regime (1) • The agreed long-‐term goal of 2 degree requires us to
reduce emission more dras-cally and rapidly and to move as quickly as possible towards a low carbon society.
• Post-‐2020 climate regime should deliver significant reduc-on (Effec-veness). • Effec-veness: ambi-on × par-cipa-on × compliance (Bodansky, 2012) • Even though countries commit themselves to ambi-ous target, but less countries par-cipate, it might undermine the overall effec-veness.
• Even though more countries par-cipate but they only commit themselves to very weak target, it might undermine the overall effec-veness.
• Par-cipa-on and ambi-on might be affected by comparability of efforts with other countries (a sense of equity). • Lack of/ less comparability might lead to “rush to the bopom”, and then undermine the effec-veness.
9
10 Source:UNEP(2013)�
Challenges for climate regime (2) • All Par-es are expected to contribute, for doing so, preparing and
communicate their INDC in the context of 2015 agreement. – INDC is based on voluntary pledge by each country (bopom-‐up
approach) • Might be the only way large eminng countries could agree on (par-cipate).
– Experiences of Cancun pledge (Pre-‐2020 regime) raise two concerns • Is is the way of ensuring achieving the emerging long term target (overall
effec-veness)? – Gap between current level of pledges and level required by science exists. Current level
of accumulated pledges would lead to increase in temperature by about 3.5 degree (about 700ppmv) by 2100 (Höhne et al. 2009).
• How to ensure the comparability of efforts? – Lack of/ less comparability might lead to “rush to the bopom”, and then undermine the
effec-veness.
– Definitely needs some device to enhance the effec-veness: countries are seeking bopom-‐up plus/ hybrid approach • US proposal:Countries submit targets, subject to ex ante consulta-on among
countries for incen-vizing countries to raise the ambi-on and for ensuring ex ante clarity and comparability
11
Challenges for climate regime (3)
• How to ensure flexibility in accordance with na-onal circumstances and comparability of efforts to enhance the effec-veness? – Due to -me constraint and in light of feasibility, the 2015 agreed outcome would (should) be simple, composed of key components.
– To what extent interna-onal rules are necessary (framing rules and common accoun-ng rules)?
12
Challenges for climate regime (4) • Framing rules and process are cri-cally important to
balance flexibility and comparability. – Supposing that it is NOT a process just for once but it should
be con-nuous one. Needs a robust founda-on, but which would evolve over -me.
• Some regime components are essen-al to enhance the effec-veness. For instance, – Common target period (or target year with emission path).
• Implica-ons for interna-onal transfer of carbon credits should also be considered.
– Length of target period: avoid lock-‐in of exis-ng commitments • Shorter target period (ex. 2020-‐2025) would be beper. • Might be longer period (ex. 2020-‐2030) with mid term review.
– Rules on LULUCF and use of market mechanisms • Should reflect real reduc-on and avoid double coun-ng.
13
Challenges for climate regime (5)
• Needs to establish a robust process to control the overall effec-veness (1). – Elabora-on and submission of INDC
• Submission and implementa-on of INDC is mandatory, but its level (and type) is determined by each country, which would respect na-onal decision and sovereignty.
• Relevant informa-on enough to assess it should also be submiped. – Interna-onal assessment and review of INDC (ex ante
assessment) • Necessary to enhance transparency and accountability and then
ensure comparability. • For this -me, assessment would be more flexible because of lack of
-me and because some developing countries may need more capacity.
– Ex post review of implementa-on (MRV) • How would we be able to learn from BR + IAR and BUR + ICA?
14
Possible Process
15
16
Biennial Report *Na-onal Communica-on (per 4 years)
�
Technical review → Technical review report�
Mul-lateral assessment in SBI�
MRV for mi-ga-on by developed countries�
IAR modali-es (COP17)
BR Guidelines (COP17)
Informa-on on quan-fied target (condi-ons/ assump-ons/ base year/ approaches to coun-ng emissions and removals/ use of market based mechanisms) Informa-on on mi-ga-on ac-ons Progress made towards the target Projec-on for 2020 and 2030 emissions Informa-on on support etc�
Review guidelines(COP19)
17
Biennial Update Report *Na-onal Communica-on (per 4 years)
�
Technical analysis → Summary report�
Facilita-ve sharing of views in SBI�
MRV for mi-ga-on by developing countries�
ICA modali-es (adopted at COP17)
BUR Guidelines
(adopted at COP17) Developing countries shall submit
-‐ inventory for the calendar year no more than four years prior to the date of submission or more recent years Developing countries should submit -‐ updates of na-onal inventories -‐ informa-on on mi-ga-on ac-ons etc�
18
Interna-onally supported NAMA�
Interna-onally not supported NAMA�
Domes-c MRV � Domes-c MRV �
Interna-onal MRV �
Technical analysis → Summary report�
Facilita-ve sharing of views in SBI�
Guidelines (COP19)�
MRV for mi-ga-on by developing countries �
ICA (COP17)
BUR� BUR�BUR Guidelines (COP17)
Challenges for climate regime (6)
• Needs to establish a robust process to control the overall effec-veness (2). – Mechanism to revise commitments upwards • Built-‐in trigger is helpful. • Regular review, perhaps based on ex post review and IPCC
scien-fic review. • Review triggered by significant change in major
assump-ons of each country’s commitments – Differen-a-on would also be possible in terms of assessment and review. • Different frequency of review depending on climate impact (ex. WTO TPRE)
• Flexibility at the opera-onal level, by considering the cause of non compliance and na-onal circumstances.
19
Wrap-‐up remarks (1)
• Several factors would determine the effec-veness of climate regime. – Countries are currently seeking broader par-cipa-on rather than stringency of each commitment.
– However, such an approach might raise serious concern about comparability of efforts and distor-on of interna-onal compe--veness, thus leading to “rush to the bopom” which undermine effec-veness of the whole regime.
– Some regime components and a robust process to control the effec-veness are essen-al.
20
Wrap-‐up remarks (2) • Focus of discussion in the nego-a-on seems to be moving to how effec-vely interna-onal ins-tu-ons could assist local and na-onal ac-ons in delivering reduc-on poten-al as much as possible.
• Pre-‐2020 ac-ons are important in that it would determine the level of contribu-on beyond 2020 and that it would impact regime components, for instance MRV.
• Issue of transi-on from pre 2020 to post 2020 regime. – Which pre-‐2020 components should be anchored in the 2015 agreement, including the ones under the Kyoto Protocol, and how?
21
AOSIS proposal to raise the pre-‐2020 ambi-on
22
Rela-onship with UNFCCC and KP
23
UNFCCC and its COP decisions
2015 agreement(A)
Implemen-ng rules(B)
Kyoto Protocol (KP)
Impleme-ng rules of the KP ����??�
����??�
Discussions about INDC (1)
• Structural aspects of INDC – Time frame or -me period: 2020-‐2025 or 2020-‐2030? (linked with schedule of the whole process)
– Base year: fixed or flexible? – Coverage: fixed or flexible? • Na-onal economy wide or allow sectorial? • GHG coverage? • Mi-ga-on only or allow other type of contribu-on (adapta-on, finance…) (Mi-ga-on plus or more selec-ve)?
24
Discussions about INDC (2) • Substan-ve aspects of INDC (mi-ga-on)
– Differen-a-on: • Based on which criteria? • according to categories of countries or “spectrum of commitments”?
– Type of contribu-on: • Fixed or flexible? • Condi-onal or uncondi-onal?
– Level of contribu-on: • How to decide and assess contribu-on: Top-‐down (Kyoto Protocol type) approach or Bopom-‐up (Cancun Agreement type) approach?
• Flexible or assessed by some reference (ex. principle-‐based reference framework)
– Common interna-onal rules (accoun-ng rules): • Whether or not they are necessary, and if any, what and to what extent could be counted as efforts.
• LULUCF and interna-onal market mechanism 25
Discussion about INDC (3) • Process and other issues relevant to INDC
– Ex ante process: • Whether to establish or not, and what to do in the process.
– Informa-on necessary to ensure clarity and transparency of INDCs • Could vary according to the types of INDC • Some Par-es expect Informa-on for INDCs quan-fied/quan-fiable.
– Timing of finaliza-on/formaliza-on of INDC • 2015 or later (2016 or 2017…) (linked with contents and legal nature of 2015 agreement)
– Legal nature of commitments • Might be different from the legal nature of the instrument • All or a part of INDCs could be legally binding
– Ex post review (linked with -me frame or -me period) • Review of implementa-on and compliance (MRV) • Regular review of the contribu-on
– Differen-a-on 26