Possible elements of a 2015 legal agreement on climate change

Side event

“Mitigation commitments in the 2015 agreement”

Wednesday, 13 November, 2013

Erik Haites (Margaree Consultants)

Farhana Yamin

(University College London & Chatham House)

Niklas Höhne

Ecofys (n.hoehne@ecofys.com) & Wageningen University)

Similar events

Making Nationally-determined Contributions Operational and

More Ambitious

> Saturday, 16 November, 16:00-17:30, Japan Pavilion

> Speakers include: Jennifer Morgan or Kelly Levin (WRI), Kentaro

Tamura (IGES), Niklas Höhne (Ecofys) and others

Squaring the Circle of Mitigation Adequacy and Equity -

Options and Perspectives

> Monday, 18 November, 16:45-18:15, UNFCCC side event room

Wroclaw

> Speakers: Wolfgang Sterk (Wuppertal Institute), Fraunhofer ISI,

Oeko-Institute, Niklas Höhne (Ecofys), Marion Vieweg (Climate

Analytics)

Comprehensive list: http://www.ecofys.com/en/event/unfccc

Experience from the past on mitigation

commitments

> Diverse: Pledges are very diverse (economy wide targets to

individual projects)

> Ambiguous: Pledges often were ambiguous and had to be

clarified

> 2°C: Some pledges are influenced ranges needed for 2°C

– Japan -25%, Norway -40%, Mexico and South Korea 30%

below BAU…

> National: Some pledges are also primarily driven by national

discussions

– EU, USA, …

> Unchangeable: Pledges once made did not change

– No major economy has changed its pledge of 2009, although

the gap is widely accepted

– Even countries that will over-achieve their pledge (new

circumstances or more information) do not change it

Name 5

Paper

Possible Elements of a 2015

Legal Agreement on Climate

Change

Erik Haites; Farhana Yamin; Niklas

Höhne

Working Papers N°16/2013. Iddri,

2013. 24 p.

> Proposal on a package of

possible elements of a 2015 legal

agreement

> Tried to find an effective new

landing ground that is “hybrid” -

avoiding sterile debate between

“top-down” and “bottom-up”

approaches

> Proposal is entirely the authors

responsibility

Overview & background

Mitigation

> Legal gap in UNFCCC: fundamental weakness is lack of clear

binding commitment for any Party to reduce GHGs

Ambition

Joint goal of all Parties to phase out anthropogenic

greenhouse gas emissions by 2050

Register of mitigation actions by non-state entities

Nationally proposed 2020-23 commitments consistent with the phase

out goal based on self selected equity principle

Mitigation – phase out goal

> “All parties to the 2015 Agreement commit, jointly and

individually, to a goal of phasing out anthropogenic

greenhouse gas emissions, with a target of net zero emissions

by no later than 2050, and to take additional action until this goal

is achieved.” This addresses fundamental legal gap relating to

mitigation for long term.

> Very low levels of greenhouse gas emissions are required to

stabilize atmospheric concentrations at any level

> Scenarios show that 2050 phase out date is ambitious but

technically and economically feasible

See also:

Höhne et al. 2013, Feasibility of GHG emissions phase-out by mid-

century, http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-2013-feasibility-ghg-phase-out-2050.pdf

Mitigation – individual commitments

Proposal:

Commitment and

equity principle

Technical review

and questions

Final 2020-23 Commitment

More ambitious 2024-27

commitment

Sufficient?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Parties propose national commitments

• For 2020-2023

• Consistent with net zero phase out goal

• Free on nature of its national commitment, but expressed

as a change to observed emissions or policies

• With equity principle(s) used to determine the fair

contribution to the global effort

A party may raise the

ambition level of its

commitment at any

time

• Subsequent periods automatic

• Commitments determined in same way but must

be more ambitious

Not in the proposal

• Commonly agreed equity reference

framework

• Categories of parties

Inclusiveness

> The national commitment of a country that is not a party to the

agreement can be “recognized” subject to criteria such as

equivalent stringency of both mitigation and financial

commitments and acceptance of the reporting and international

review arrangements that apply to parties

> “Recognition” is a COP decision based on advice from the

Compliance Committee

> Possible internationally agreed border adjustments on imports of

emissions-intensive goods from non-parties with no recognized

national commitment

> Border adjustment is a COP decision based on advice from the

Compliance Committee. Experience shows these would rarely, if

ever, be used

Alternative processes to determine commitments

(not part of this proposal) I

Equity Reference

Framework (optional)

Proposals

Negotiations

Review

of aggregated

proposals

Individual review

Fixing in agreement

Ratchet up (optional)

Sufficient?

YesNo

Sufficient?

Yes No

Agreed?

Yes

No

Alternative processes to determine commitments

(not part of this proposal) II

> Separate proposal on type and proposal

on level

> Allows to indicate order of magnitude

commitment without determining a fixed

number

See Benito Müller and Niklas Höhne: A Staged Approach:

The sequencing of mitigation commitments in the post-

2020 ADP negotiations

http://jusharma.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/a-staged-

approach-the-sequencing-of-mitigation-commitments-in-the-

post-2020-adp-negotiations-2/

Proposals on type of

commitment and equity principle

Negotiations

Fixing in agreement

Informal assessment of commitment

levels

Proposals on level of

commitment

Elements of process for mitigation commitments

Source: Differentiated mitigation commitments in a new climate agreement Niklas Höhne, Hanna Fekete, Christian Ellermann and Sandra Freitas

Conclusions

> We present one way in which a balanced but

effective agreement can be constructed

Mitigation commitments balance

> Very ambitious and clear phase out goal

> Nationally determined commitments

– With justification

– In line with phase out goal

Ambition

Joint goal of all Parties to phase out anthropogenic

greenhouse gas emissions by 2050

Register of mitigation actions by non-state entities

Nationally proposed 2020-23 commitments consistent with the phase

out goal based on self selected equity principle

Backup slides

Mitigation – phase out goal

Several scenarios available

(more soon available for the in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report)

Source Höhne et al. 2013, Feasibility of GHG emissions phase-out by mid-century,

http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-2013-feasibility-ghg-phase-out-2050.pdf

Mitigation – phase out goal

Source: Höhne et al. 2013, Feasibility of GHG emissions phase-out by mid-century,

http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-2013-feasibility-ghg-phase-out-2050.pdf

MRV and compliance

> Parties agree on accounting rules relating to emissions and support to

avoid double counting and to ensure transparent and comparable

treatment of land use change and forestry

> All parties prepare and submit annual inventories, biennial reports and

national communications using the agreed methodologies and formats for

developed country parties beginning no later than 2020.

> Methodologies & formats may need to be revised to cover the range of

commitment types adopted and updated calculations of the party’s fair

share of the global emission reduction target based on the equity

principle(s) it proposed

> Lighter reporting requirements are developed for LDCs and parties whose

annual GHG emissions are less than 0.1% of global total (96 parties)

> All reports are subject to international expert review analogous with the

Kyoto Protocol process

> The Compliance Committee is transferred from the CMP to COP with its

mandate and composition adjusted as necessary

Adaptation

> Adaptation is given greater financial and institutional resources

across the UN

> UNSG establishes a high level panel to report in early 2015 on

how adaptation, disaster risk reduction, security implications, loss

and damage and other long term issues can be addressed and

financed in an integrated manner across the UN/UNFCCC

> Relevant recommendations of the panel are incorporated into the

2015 Agreement

> May involve guidance to the Adaptation Committee

> Review of adaptation arrangements in 2017

Finance

> Each biennial review by the Standing Committee on Finance

serves as the basis for a COP decision on climate finance to be

mobilized by parties

> Each party’s contribution is calculated using the UN scale of

assessment at the time

> Parties continue to have discretion over the channels used for

their financial contributions

Technology and Capacity Building

> The Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and Climate

Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) guide development and

diffusion of technology under the Convention with funding from

operating entities of the financial mechanism of the Convention

subject to COP decisions

> Capacity building needs and strategies are determined by

thematic area based on national input

> Programmes to implement the capacity building strategies are

fast tracked for approval and funding by operating entities of the

financial mechanism of the Convention based on COP guidance

Market mechanism

> Convention does not contain a market mechanism. New

agreement should enable Parties that want to use such

mechanisms to benefit from linking with others.

> A party that wishes to sell emission units establishes a domestic

emissions trading and/or offset crediting system

> A new market mechanism body certifies allowances and credits

that meet specified criteria (e.g. is meeting its commitment) as

international units. Only international units transferred via the ITL

can be used for compliance with national commitments

> The new market mechanism body takes over any remaining

functions of the CDM Executive Board and JI Supervisory

Committee

Legal form

> New agreement should solve the fundamental legal gap in the UNFCCC

which is lack of binding mitigation commitments for all Parties. The new

agreement therefore needs to have a binding form in respect of

mitigation commitments

> Our proposal is a mix of a long term quantitative binding goal (net zero)

plus binding shorter term targets as well as qualitative commitment to

keep taking more stringent mitigation action until Article 2 is achieved

> The new agreement should legally “upgrade” reporting & MRV so that it

is binding for all Parties (with discretion for LDCs and those with <1%

emissions)

> Some elements relating to finance & technology would also need to be

legally upgraded

> The final legal form of the agreement may need to be a mix of legal

instruments including for example, amendments to the Convention,

amendments to the Kyoto Protocol, a new protocol, legal instrument or

agreed outcome with legal force as well as COP and CMP decisions.

Conclusions

> A well designed agreement would command widespread adherence and trigger early action leading to lower compliance costs of the global transition to a non-GHG dependent pathway

> A poorly designed agreement might do the opposite

> The way rights and obligations are crafted and balanced against one another, as well as how trade-offs are constructed across topics such as mitigation, adaptation and resources for implementation, will be critical for an agreement and for other negotiations

> We present one way in which a balanced but effective agreement can be constructed. Many elements could be elaborated further and would benefit from additional research

> We hope it provides a useful input to the process of negotiating an agreement in 2015

Energy related CO2 emissions in phase out

scenarios

> Option 1: Very high energy efficiency and near 100% renewables, no CCS

(bottom up scenarios)

> Option 2: Less efficiency, significant bio CCS (Integrated Assessment Models)

Non-CO2 emissions in phase out scenarios

GHG emissions today

Source: Ecofys, based on IEA and EDGAR databases