Farrukh   Presentation At Sce
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1.  
  • 2.
    • Multilateral response to climate change after the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period has expired (i.e. in the “post-2012” period).
    • Simultaneously developing a shared vision where both developed and the developing countries contribute to differentiated mitigation efforts.
  • 3.
    • New Economics - reverses the relationship between GHG and economic growth and development. There is no exiting economic model.
      • Theoretically it is possible to inverse this relationship but at a huge cost. UNFCCC estimates that it should be around US $ 200-210 billion annually. That cost has now gone up.
    • How to deal with historical responsibility?
      • Developed countries are historically responsible. Roughly 77% of the GHG a product of industrialization (OECD countries).
      • Per capita emission in the United States is roughly 20 tonnes, UK is roughly 10 tonnes, Germany 9.7, Netherlands, 10.1 tonnes as opposed to developing countries like China, India, Pakistan Brazil, which range from less than 1 tonnes to 4.6 tonnes in the case of china.
  • 4.
    • How much financing is needed to mitigate and adapt to climate change in the developing countries?
      • Suppose the 2 degree scenario - to meet that 17 GTs is needed to be mitigated or abated. How much can the developed countries do within that 17Gts by 2020?
    • Are the financial and technology mechanism sufficiently flexible? Do they have the speed and scale to deliver on to this challenge?
    • How this financial resources (UNFCCC estimate US $ 200-210 annually be raised? Can market deliver? Would the markets deliver in all countries?
  • 5.
    • Should we and how to restructure the financing architecture? Should and is the existing architecture represented by MDBs, Environment related Funds and Regional Banks sufficient?
    • Are the unilateral commitments to mitigate by any developed country to date meet the unilateral announcement of 2 degree scenario? Are there commitment within themselves sufficient?
  • 6.
      • The level of ambitions for emission reduction by the developed country parties. This level must commensurate with their historical responsibility.
      • Unlocking the multilateral negotiations under the Kyoto protocol track to discuss the level of ambition for 2 nd commitment period of the Annex-I countries.
      • Fair burden sharing in mitigation reflecting adherence to “common but differentiated responsibilities”.
  • 7.
    • The role of the non parties to the Kyoto Protocol in undertaking mitigation and that they must be treated just like any other developed country even if they are not a Party to the Kyoto Protocol i.e. comparability of efforts.
    • Provision of requisite finance and technology as a pre condition to enhancing the developing countries’ role on mitigation.
      • To this end, establishment of a new financial and technology transfer mechanisms under the overall authority of the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC. To be financed through 0.5 to 1% of developed countries’ GNP, this would yield $200 to $400 billion a year.
  • 8.
    • All funds established or made available outside the UNFCCC framework should be linked with a financial mechanism to be established under the UNFCCCC.
    • Funding and technology transfer should supplement national development priorities and not just mitigation objective.
    • Climate friendly technologies should be made free from Intellectual Property Rights regime, which provides for exorbitant fee and profits to the owners of technologies and makes it difficult for the developing countries to acquire them.
  • 9.
    • Financing on Adaptation on a non debt creating basis.
    • Redesigning the criterion of vulnerability of countries to climate change of scientific basis as opposed to limiting them to LDCs or SIDs alone.
    • Avoiding any coercive measures such as trade sanctions and unilateral trade measures (trade protectionism) by developed countries on the grounds of taking climate action since it would pass on the burden and cost of adjustment to developing countries through the side door of trade measures .
  • 10.
    • Hard to quantify progress in terms of drafting.
    • There is a limited progress.
    • The Bon talks which concluded on the 15 th of August2009 have led to identification of the complexity of negotiations
    • Political solution outside the UNFCCC before initiating real negotiations at the UNFCCC.
    • The Bangkok Talks in September will determine the nature of outcome.
    • Deal is possible, solution and an agreed outcome is difficult.
    • Post Copenhagen?
  • 11.
    • Questions requiring an answer for a post 2012 climate change cooperative framework at Copenhagen.
      • What will be the future of the Kyoto Protocol?
        • Should there be a new protocol? Or should actions to address Climate Change continue within the ambit of Kyoto Protocol?
        • Developing countries position? Developed countries position?
  • 12.
      • Should there be a global goal or global goals ?
        • What should be the form of such a goal? Should it be defined in emission reduction target alone? Or can such goal be in the form of financial and technology transfer commitments by the Annex-1 parties?
        • 2 degrees? What is the implication?
        • Also, the “global goal of emission reduction” cannot be agreed to in a stand-alone way but has to emerge through an equity-based approach in which the developed and developing countries’ contributions are explicitly understood.
  • 13.
        • If a goal has to be expressed in emission reduction alone, than how much?
          • Should it be halving the global emission by 2050, as Japan has suggested?
          • Should developed countries contribute 80%?
            • Should it be more than 80% relative to 1990 levels as suggested by the recent scientific evidence?
  • 14.
      • Should there be a burden sharing between the developed and the developing countries?
        • Is burden sharing against the fundamental principle of “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities”?
        • What could be the form of such a burden sharing? Binding obligations or voluntary and nationally appropriate actions?
        • What do we mean by measureable, reportable and verifiable mitigation actions on the part of the developing countries?
        • What needs to be measured, reported and verified in the case of developed countries?
  • 15.
      • Should an agreement at AWGKP precede an agreement at AWGLCA?
        • Should there be sequencing between agreements/outcomes of the two tracks?
        • Should AWGKP be merged into AWGLCA and the negotiations should be on one single text or two different texts?
  • 16.
      • What possible mechanisms do we need to achieve the “shared vision” we will set for ourselves?
        • A Convention mechanism on technology transfer? An international Treaty or a framework on technology development and Transfer?
        • A Convention mechanism on financing the mitigation and adaptation activities?
  • 17.
        • Can we establish Regional Technological Research and Development Centers which can be supported and promoted by the International community?
        • What would be the role of three market mechanisms? Emission Trading, Joint Implementation (JI) and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in the post 2012? Including if there is a successor agreement to Kyoto and if there is no successor agreement?
  • 18.
      • What would be the form of an agreed outcome at Copenhagen?
        • Should there be a new treaty?
        • Should it be a series of decision?
        • Should such decision be ratifiable/legally binding or not?
  • 19.
    • Shared Vision.
      • Don’t we already have one? How many shared vision do we need to bridge an implementation gap?
    • Politics of Numbers
      • Global cut of 50% with Annex-I cut of 70%
      • Global cut of 50% by 2050 with Annex-I cut of 80%
      • Global cut of 50% by 2050 with Annex-I cut of 100%
      • Global cut of 50% by 2050 but constant per capita emission by the developing countries
  • 20.