Copenhagen Outcomes And Usaid Nairobi Narrated W Photos­ Original Final


Published on

  • 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

No notes for slide

Copenhagen Outcomes And Usaid Nairobi Narrated W Photos­ Original Final

  1. 1. Copenhagen outcomes: Implications for USAID USAID Global Climate Change Team USAID/ Washington February 1, 2010
  2. 2. “I'm committed to working in common effort with countries from around the globe. That's also why I believe what we have achieved in Copenhagen will not be the end but rather the beginning, the beginning of a new era of international action.” President Barack Obama December 18, 2009 Copenhagen COP, closing remarks
  3. 3. <ul><ul><li>The United States is pleased to inform you… of its desire to be associated with the Copenhagen Accord. Attached please find the submission of the United States concerning its emissions reduction target [in the range of 17% by 2020 toward a 83% goal in 2050]….. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>We look forward to implementing the Accord... </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Todd Stern </li></ul><ul><li>U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change </li></ul>Communication to the UNFCCC Executive Secretary January 28, 2010 BREAKING NEWS!!!
  4. 4. Framing the issue: USAID and Climate Change
  5. 5. <ul><li>Sustainable economic growth </li></ul><ul><li>Cross-sectoral analysis and actions to address development and environment </li></ul><ul><li>Political will of governments to make hard choices in favor of better resource management </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstrated results from USAID investments </li></ul><ul><li>Finance for forest conservation, clean energy, and climate resilient development </li></ul><ul><li>Effective actions to address climate change </li></ul>USAID development and environment interests
  6. 6. Global emissions trends
  7. 7. <ul><li>Increased hunger </li></ul><ul><li>Spread of disease </li></ul><ul><li>Changes in water availability </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure damage </li></ul><ul><li>Change in forest cover </li></ul><ul><li>Amplified hazards </li></ul><ul><li>Sea level rise </li></ul><ul><li>Loss of biodiversity </li></ul>Examples of climate change impacts But we can do things to reduce these impacts!
  8. 8. <ul><li>1994-1999 : Country Studies Program – partnerships with developing country governments to build capacity and identify priority actions (CSP and other $150-$200M/yr) </li></ul><ul><li>2000-2009 : Global climate change and clean energy earmarks/directives, ($150-$200M/yr) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Most funding attributed to Biodiversity or Clean Energy, almost none for Adaptation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2010-2012 : New Administration initiative tied to negotiations and to offsets for US, dedicated funding plus attributed funding </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2010 $305 M, 2011 request $500 M </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Future : Draft Bills in Congress for $4-8B/yr for Adaptation, REDD, Clean Energy. Expectation this will create significant emissions reductions and offset credits for US companies </li></ul>Climate Change over the years at USAID* *budget numbers are USAID only
  9. 9. UNFCCC negotiations and the Copenhagen Accord
  10. 10. <ul><li>1992 : UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Country commitments to action and support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bodies for scientific and technical advice (SBSTA), and implementation (SBI) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>1997 : Kyoto Protocol negotiated </li></ul><ul><li>2005 : Kyoto Protocol enters into force, US is not a party </li></ul><ul><li>2007 : Bali Action Plan </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Adhoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) to explore possible new treaty </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>AWG-KP to negotiate second Kyoto compliance period </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mandate to deliver draft decisions for adoption by COP in Copenhagen, Dec 2009 </li></ul></ul>The UNFCCC framework and processes
  11. 16. <ul><li>Political agreement, not legally binding treaty </li></ul><ul><li>Global 2 degree Celsius target w/ 2015 review (1.5 degree) </li></ul><ul><li>“ A low emission development strategy is indispensable to sustainable development” </li></ul><ul><li>Annexes that will list: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Developed country 2020 emissions reduction commitments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Developing country mitigation action commitments </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Developed countries provide adequate, predictable and sustainable funding </li></ul><ul><li>Monitoring, Reporting, and Verifying provisions for mitigation and finance </li></ul><ul><li>REDD-plus funding, Technology Mechanism </li></ul>Copenhagen Accord: A comprehensive framework
  12. 17. <ul><li>2010-2012, $30B public funding for mitigation & adaptation </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Includes $1B over 3 years USG announcement for forest mitigation early action </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>By 2020, annual $100B funding (including private investment and carbon markets) </li></ul><ul><li>A “significant portion” of funding to go through Copenhagen Green Climate Fund for: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>mitigation including REDD-plus, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>adaptation, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>capacity building, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>technology development and transfer </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Monitoring, Reporting, and Verifying of finance </li></ul>Copenhagen Accord: Finance
  13. 18. <ul><li>Adaptation is listed before mitigation and given equal weight </li></ul><ul><li>“ Funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa” </li></ul><ul><li>No agreed text beyond that contained in Accord </li></ul><ul><li>Major remaining issues for negotiation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Funding: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>How much and who manages? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Who gets assistance? (who is “most vulnerable?”) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>What about “Response Measures?” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Institutional Arrangements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Adaptation Advisory Committee? Other? </li></ul></ul></ul>Copenhagen Accord: Adaptation
  14. 19. <ul><li>All parties submit National Communication every 2 years, to include: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>National Greenhouse Gas Inventory </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>List of mitigation actions and results of their MRV </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Developed country emissions commitments </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Subject to current and any new MRV provisions under Convention </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Developing country mitigation action commitments </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Self-financed actions subject to domestic MRV, plus international consultations and analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Supported actions subject to international MRV </li></ul></ul>Copenhagen Accord: Monitoring, Reporting and Verifying mitigation
  15. 20. <ul><li>Legal status of Accord and its component actions </li></ul><ul><li>Operationalize Accord </li></ul><ul><ul><li>MRV system and standards, especially relationship to National Greenhouse Gas Inventories </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Green Fund governance, contribution levels, sources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NAMA registry </li></ul></ul>Copenhagen Accord: Cross-cutting finance and MRV negotiation issues for coming year
  16. 21. <ul><li>E stablishes a Technology Mechanism </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action on both adaptation and mitigation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Guided by a country-driven approach </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Negotiations reached general consensus in draft text on many elements of a Technology Mechanism; </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Actions include both cooperative international actions and unilateral and supported national actions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mechanism would consist of a Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and a Climate Technology Center (CTC) </li></ul></ul>Copenhagen Accord: Technology Development and Transfer
  17. 22. <ul><li>Technology Executive Committee : normative body provides support to Parties on broad policy, technical and analytical issues </li></ul><ul><li>Climate Technology Center : provides TA and training to support and facilitate implementation of actions </li></ul><ul><li>Major remaining issues for negotiation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Intellectual Property Rights under the UNFCCC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Links between the Mechanism and financial arrangements and the type of actions the Mechanism would support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Role of the Mechanism in MRV of Technology Transfer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Functions, operations and governance of TEC and CTC </li></ul></ul>Copenhagen Accord: Technology Development and Transfer
  18. 23. <ul><li>A short paragraph that explicitly uses term “REDD-plus” </li></ul><ul><li>Agrees to provide positive incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and enhance removals of greenhouse gas emission by forests </li></ul><ul><li>Finance mobilized through establishing a mechanism that includes REDD-plus </li></ul><ul><li>SBSTA decision on methodology – approved in Copenhagen </li></ul><ul><li>Draft text on policy issues related to REDD-plus </li></ul>Copenhagen Accord: REDD-plus
  19. 24. <ul><li>Countries need robust national forest inventory systems that use combination of remote sending and ground-based carbon inventory approaches </li></ul><ul><li>The system and results need to be “transparent, available and suitable for review.” </li></ul><ul><li>Estimation of GHG emissions uses latest IPCC Guidelines and Guidance adopted by the COP </li></ul><ul><li>To help capture leakage – i.e. displacement of emissions from one location to another - all lands must be accounted for in the greenhouse gas estimation and assigned to a land use category. </li></ul><ul><li>Crediting reference level takes account of historic data, and can be adjusted for national circumstances </li></ul>REDD-plus issues agreed in SBSTA decision
  20. 25. <ul><li>National REDD-plus strategies are required </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Should be developed with meaningful involvement of all relevant stakeholders, particularly indigenous peoples and local communities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Countries “identify the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation resulting in emissions” </li></ul><ul><li>Safeguards on biodiversity and against forest conversion </li></ul><ul><li>Safeguards for local and indigenous people and their rights </li></ul>REDD+ agreed in draft text: Strategies & safeguards
  21. 26. <ul><li>Will the system pay for REDD-plus project credits? </li></ul><ul><li>Use of REDD-plus credits in emissions markets </li></ul><ul><li>Methodology and review process for reference levels </li></ul><ul><li>Designing a Monitoring, Reporting and Verifying system </li></ul><ul><li>Operationalizing social and biodiversity safeguards </li></ul>REDD-plus remaining negotiation issues
  22. 27. Immediate actions the world community* can take to implement the Copenhagen Accord *includes USAID!
  23. 28. <ul><li>Country-driven, politically endorsed strategies for long-term, climate resilient mitigation goals and actions. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A long-term emissions baseline and alternative emission pathways </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Strategies to achieve the low-emissions pathways </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Description and prioritization of actions at a level sufficient to begin implementing and obtain finance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Comprehensive review of all sectors, detail in key sectors </li></ul><ul><li>Implementing the Strategy will create the enabling environment and capacity to access public finance and carbon market finance </li></ul><ul><li>USAID, State, DOE leading interagency process to develop principals, methodology and process for LEDS. </li></ul>What is a Low Emissions Development Strategy?
  24. 29. <ul><li>Assessment of the capacities, capabilities and political will and appetite of countries to partner with the US in this effort </li></ul><ul><li>Quantitative assessment of historical GHG emissions trends </li></ul><ul><li>Estimates of mitigation potential of different sectors, mitigation actions and the cost of these actions </li></ul><ul><li>Creating institutional capacity to conduct national Greenhouse Gas Inventories every two years </li></ul>Early actions on Low Emissions Development Strategies, Greenhouse Gas Inventories, and MRV
  25. 30. <ul><li>Disarray in negotiations, so little concrete guidance on priority actions </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstrate US commitment to action, not planning </li></ul><ul><li>Build institutional capacity to access and apply climate information </li></ul><ul><li>Help countries identify adaptation and development priorities </li></ul><ul><li>Shape early actions and develop best practices through USAID leadership and example </li></ul>Early actions on Adaptation
  26. 31. <ul><ul><li>Quantitative assessment of historical GHG emissions trends </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Energy Sector assessments including GHG mitigation potentials, GHG mitigation actions, cost and co-benefits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Build country readiness to participate in international carbon markets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Capacity building programs for stakeholders (public sector, private sector, NGO) and Mission Staff in GCC issues, carbon markets </li></ul></ul>Early actions on Clean Technology
  27. 32. <ul><li>As part of LEDS, support creation of national and sub-national REDD-plus strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Analyses of drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, and drivers of increased sequestration </li></ul><ul><li>National forest inventory and monitoring systems tied to national GHG Inventories </li></ul><ul><li>Indigenous and community involvement and rights, benefit sharing systems and policies </li></ul><ul><li>Limited and targeted pilot demonstrations </li></ul>Early actions on REDD-plus
  28. 33. <ul><li>Development and economic growth is a central theme - focus on Low Emissions Development Strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Countries analyze development dynamics, drivers for change, and enabling environment </li></ul><ul><li>Unprecedented new political will and incentives for action </li></ul><ul><li>Monitoring of results, payment for performance, robust standards, and international review </li></ul><ul><li>Finance at unprecedented scale for forests, adaptation, clean energy </li></ul><ul><li>Framework for robust actions that address climate change in developing countries </li></ul>Why should USAID care about the Copenhagen Accord?
  29. 34. “ Because the accord may reflect a reordering of global political dynamics it may make possible a profoundly important shift in which action on climate change is no longer seen as a threat, but rather the key, to development, and the future of poverty eradication is recognized as low carbon development . That would be an historic achievement.” Jonathan Lash President of the World Resources Institute Reflecting on the Copenhagen Accord