Possible elements of a 2015
legal agreement on climate
change
Side event
“Mitigation commitments in the 2015 agreement”
We...
Similar events
Making Nationally-determined Contributions Operational and
More Ambitious

> Saturday, 16 November, 16:00-1...
Experience from the past on mitigation
commitments
> Diverse: Pledges are very diverse (economy wide targets to
individual...
Paper
Possible Elements of a 2015
Legal Agreement on Climate
Change
Erik Haites; Farhana Yamin; Niklas
Höhne

Working Pape...
Overview & background
Mitigation
> Legal gap in UNFCCC: fundamental weakness is lack of clear
binding commitment for any Party to reduce GHGs

A...
Mitigation – phase out goal
> “All parties to the 2015 Agreement commit, jointly and
individually, to a goal of phasing ou...
Mitigation – individual commitments
Parties propose national commitments

Proposal:
Commitment and
equity principle

•

Fo...
Inclusiveness
> The national commitment of a country that is not a party to the
agreement can be “recognized” subject to c...
Alternative processes to determine commitments
(not part of this proposal) I
Equity Reference
Framework
(optional)

Propos...
Alternative processes to determine commitments
(not part of this proposal) II
> Separate proposal on type and proposal
on ...
Elements of process for mitigation commitments

Source: Differentiated mitigation commitments in a new climate agreement
N...
Conclusions
> We present one way in which a balanced but
effective agreement can be constructed
Mitigation commitments bal...
Backup slides
Mitigation – phase out goal

Several scenarios available
(more soon available for the in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report)...
Mitigation – phase out goal

Source: Höhne et al. 2013, Feasibility of GHG emissions phase-out by mid-century,
http://www....
MRV and compliance
> Parties agree on accounting rules relating to emissions and support to
avoid double counting and to e...
Adaptation

> Adaptation is given greater financial and institutional resources
across the UN

> UNSG establishes a high l...
Finance

> Each biennial review by the Standing Committee on Finance
serves as the basis for a COP decision on climate fin...
Technology and Capacity Building

> The Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and Climate
Technology Centre and Network (CT...
Market mechanism
> Convention does not contain a market mechanism. New
agreement should enable Parties that want to use su...
Legal form
> New agreement should solve the fundamental legal gap in the UNFCCC
which is lack of binding mitigation commit...
Conclusions
> A well designed agreement would command

widespread adherence and trigger early action leading
to lower comp...
Energy related CO2 emissions in phase out
scenarios

> Option 1: Very high energy efficiency and near 100% renewables, no ...
Non-CO2 emissions in phase out scenarios
GHG emissions today

Source: Ecofys, based on IEA and EDGAR databases
Possible elements of a 2015 agreement on climate change - COP19
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Possible elements of a 2015 agreement on climate change - COP19

13,811 views

Published on

This presentation of a COP19 side event discusses the ample choices in the preparation of fair and ambitious
post-2020 commitments, and showcases how some individual Parties tackle this challenge, with a
particular focus on the kind of information and the processes employed for the design and choice of a
commitment. It was held by Niklas Höhne, Director of Energy and Climate Policy at Ecofys, together with Erik Haites of Margaree Consultants and Farhana Yamin of University College London & Chatham House on 13 November 2013 in Warsaw.

Published in: Technology, News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
13,811
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
24
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Possible elements of a 2015 agreement on climate change - COP19

  1. 1. 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)
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. 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 5 Name
  5. 5. Overview & background
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. 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 midcentury, http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-2013-feasibility-ghg-phase-out-2050.pdf
  8. 8. Mitigation – individual commitments Parties propose national commitments Proposal: Commitment and equity principle • 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 Technical review and questions No With equity principle(s) used to determine the fair • contribution to the global effort A party may raise the Sufficient? Yes Yes commitment at any Not in the proposal time • Commonly agreed equity reference framework Final 2020-23 Commitment More ambitious 2024-27 commitment No ambition level of its • Categories of parties • Subsequent periods automatic • Commitments determined in same way but must be more ambitious
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. Alternative processes to determine commitments (not part of this proposal) I Equity Reference Framework (optional) Proposals Review of aggregated proposals Individual review Sufficient? No Sufficient? Negotiations Yes Yes Agreed? No Yes Fixing in agreement Ratchet up (optional) No
  11. 11. 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 Proposals on type of commitment and equity principle Informal assessment of commitment levels Proposals on level of commitment See Benito Müller and Niklas Höhne: A Staged Approach: The sequencing of mitigation commitments in the post2020 ADP negotiations http://jusharma.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/a-stagedapproach-the-sequencing-of-mitigation-commitments-in-thepost-2020-adp-negotiations-2/ Negotiations Fixing in agreement
  12. 12. Elements of process for mitigation commitments Source: Differentiated mitigation commitments in a new climate agreement Niklas Höhne, Hanna Fekete, Christian Ellermann and Sandra Freitas
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. Backup slides
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. 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.
  23. 23. 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 tradeoffs 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
  24. 24. 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)
  25. 25. Non-CO2 emissions in phase out scenarios
  26. 26. GHG emissions today Source: Ecofys, based on IEA and EDGAR databases

×