“YOU HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATING ALL MY LIFE.”

“YOU HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATING ALL MY LIFE.”

Climate negotiations from Rio (1992) to Paris (2015)

OUTLINE1. Introduction: Who I am and what I’m talking about2. Assumptions: What I take for granted3. The Convention4. The Berlin Mandate and the Kyoto Protocol

OUTLINE: PART 21. The Bali Action Plan and Copenhagen2. The 2011 Durban reset: ‘applicable to all’3. Negotiations from 2012-20144. Questions

WHO I AM AND WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT

1. Former New Zealand lawyer

2. My research: Differentiation

3. Climate activist

ASSUMPTIONS

I assume that mainstream climate science is correct.

MAINSTREAM CLIMATE SCIENCE IS CORRECT

1. Climate change is real (It’s a thing).2. Climate change is anthropogenic (We’re causing it).3. Climate change is harmful (It will be bad for people

and businesses).

THE SCIENCE1. Mean global temperatures have

warmed by 1ºC (Hawkins).2. Atmospheric CO2 is now

consistently above 400ppm.3. Methane has 21 times the impact

of CO2 over 100 years (UNFCCC).4. Existing consented fossil fuel

projects blow our 2ºC emissions budget (OCI)

5. We are looking at 2.7-3.5ºC warming this century (Hare et al).

THE UNFCCC FROM 1992-2009

1. Rio 1992: The Convention

2. Berlin Mandate

3. Kyoto Protocol

4. Bali Action Plan

5. Copenhagen

THE CONVENTION (1992)

• The Convention is an overarching umbrella

• Sets out normative principles and ultimate objective (avoiding dangerous climate change)

• Basis for Secretariat and COP process

THE CONVENTION (1992)The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of

equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating

climate change and the adverse effects thereof.- UNFCCC, art 3(1)

[…] taking into account [the UNFCCC Parties’] common but differentiated responsibilities and their specific national and

regional development priorities, objectives and circumstances […]- UNFCCC, art 4

AN EMERGING GENERAL PRINCIPLE?

‘14. The obligations of States are common but differentiated.’- Oslo Principles, 2015

‘In my view, the [common but differentiated responsibilities] principle is not necessary, and it is not helpful. […] To me, this notion is nowhere close to being either hard or soft law […]’

- Susan Biniaz, US Department of State, 2002

BERLIN TO KYOTO (1995-1997)

‘In the developed world only two people ride in a car, and yet you want us to give up riding on a bus.’- Lead Chinese negotiator, COP 3 in Kyoto, 1997

• Berlin mandate imposed strict firewall of differentiation• Carried over into Kyoto Protocol

THE BALI ACTION PLAN (2007-2009)

1. Quantified emissions limitation and reduction objectives (QELROS) for Annex I Parties

2. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAS) for Non-Annex Parties

COPENHAGEN

Oh dear.

NEGOTIATING DYNAMICS Ambitious / Cooperative ( / pro-binding)

Lacking ambition, lacking cooperation ( / anti-binding)

DevelopedDeveloping

NEGOTIATING DYNAMICS Ambitious / Cooperative

Lacking ambition, lacking cooperation

DevelopedDeveloping

Europe

Umbrella GroupLMDCs

BASIC

LDCs

SIDS / AOSIS

NEGOTIATING DYNAMICS Ambitious / Cooperative

Lacking ambition, lacking cooperation

DevelopedDeveloping

Europe

Umbrella GroupLMDCs

BASIC

LDCs

SIDS / AOSIS

High AmbitionCoalition???

TWO ARCHITECTURES FOR MITIGATION COMMITMENTS

1. Top down• Idealised model of Kyoto Protocol• Protocol sets out each Parties’ commitment

2. Bottom up• Each Party sets their own target• Copenhagen Accord and Cancun Agreements

THE DURBAN RESET: APPLICABLE TO ALL

• New process launched.• Three key points:

1. an agreement ‘with legal force’2. ‘under the Convention applicable to all

Parties’3. to be agreed in 2015 and implemented from

2020

FROM DOHA TO LIMA• Repeated debates about equity and differentiation• Without prejudice ‘Intended Nationally Determined

Contribution’ process• Lima Call for Climate Action confirms Parties’ will be

differentiated – but how?

THE 2015 INDC PROCESS

• Bottom up commitments

• But not binding – without prejudice

• Due August 2015, but ‘final’ deadline October 2015

• NGOs and UNFCCC then assessed their cumulative effect

– getting us to 2.7 C – 3.5 C.

GENEVA (JANUARY 2015)

• A draft text

• But no ‘streamlining’

• 90 pages

• Contained the architectures of about five possible treaties

ADP 2.8 IN BONN (JUNE AND AUGUST 2015)

• The ‘Chair’s Tool’

• Narrowing in towards agreement

• But still unsure: What’s in, what’s out, what’s where?

• Five days of negotiations before Paris in October.

(C) THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT

• Agreed last December, signed in April.• Aims to limit warming to “well below 2ºC” and aim for 1.5ºC

(art 2).• Nationally determined mitigation targets to be reviewed every

five years:• “Facilitative dialogue” in 2018 (Decision, cl 20).• “Global stocktake” of mitigation commitments

scheduled for 2023 (art 14).• Wide range of (less relevant) finance and adaptation

mechanisms.

THE REVIEWS ARE KEY

• Current targets have moved us ~1ºC closer to goal.

• But we’ll have blown our 2ºC emissions budget by 2036 (New Scientist) unless we ramp up ambition.

• Climate Interactive and Climate Action Tracker both present mitigation pathways for 1.5ºC and 2ºC.

• Possible, but challenging.

QUESTIONS?

(Yes, that’s a negotiator sleeping)