This document discusses options for providing flexibility in the 2015 climate change agreement before and after its adoption in 2015. It outlines possible consultation processes before 2015 to enhance understanding of countries' contributions and identify opportunities to raise ambition. It also discusses establishing revisiting and adjustment processes after 2015, including periodic, triggered, and ad hoc revisiting, and options for adjusting contributions upward or not adjusting them. The document raises questions about balancing flexibility, predictability and environmental ambition in the agreement.

1. Climate Change Expert Group www.oecd.org/env/cc/ccxg.htm
Takayoshi Kato, OECD
takayoshi.kato@oecd.org
Based on the discussion paper
“Built to Last: Designing a Flexible and Durable 2015 Climate Change
Agreement” by Gregory Briner, Takayoshi Kato and Takashi Hattori
Revisiting and adjustment processes
for the 2015 agreement
CCXG Global Forum
18 March 2014

2. 2 Climate Change Expert Group
Presentation Outline
 Outline of different options
for flexibility before and after
2015
 Processes before COP21
 Processes after COP21
 Discussion questions

3. 3 Climate Change Expert Group
Before and after the 2015 agreement
 There could be different ways of including flexibility
in the 2015 agreement before and after COP21;
 Providing enough
flexibility;
 Encouraging broader
participation
 Keeping the below 2°C
goal within reach;
 Enhancing predictability
for investors
Balance needed between…
Consultation
processes
Revisiting &
Adjustment
Adoption of the
2015 agreement
Before
After

4. Consultation processes
- Before 2015 agreement

5. 5 Climate Change Expert Group
Possible consultations on intended
contributions before COP 21 in 2015
 Enhance understanding of intended mitigation
contributions
 Raise ambition by identifying opportunities for
enhanced co-operation and co-ordination
Potential aims of the consultations:
 Which Parties?
 Timeline?
 Who would be involved?
 Forms of outputs?
 Guidance? (if any)
Open questions to clarify:

6. Revisiting and adjustment
processes
- After 2015 agreement

7. 7 Climate Change Expert Group
Process for revisiting and adjustment
 Possible approach to establishing revisiting and
adjustment processes for mitigation contributions
 It could be applied to other aspects of the
agreement. (e.g. adaptation, finance, etc.)
Adoption of the
2015 agreement
Revisiting Adjustment

8. 8 Climate Change Expert Group
Revisiting the contributions
i) Periodic ii) Triggered iii) Ad hoc
The 2015
agreement
Adjustment
•Higher
predictability of
timetable
•More efficient
by revisiting only
when needed
•Higher flexibility
for partiesPro
Con
•Increasing
uncertainty and
transaction cost
if too frequent
•Politically
difficult to agree
the nature of
triggers
•Might be
revisited too
often, or not at
all

9. 9 Climate Change Expert Group
Options for the triggers
a) Quantitative b) Qualitative c) Call by others
ii) Triggered
The 2015
agreement
Adjustment
• Annual GHG
emissions
• Atmospheric GHG
concentration etc.
• Natural disasters
• New scientific
findings
etc.
• Call for
contributions of
another Party
revisited
The POPs Protocol
FTA (Australia, NZ,
ASEAN)
WTO (Dispute
Settlement System)

10. 10 Climate Change Expert Group
Adjusting the contributions
 3 options for adjustment of mitigation contributions.
 Yet, the focus would be on upward (strengthening)
adjustment in light of the goal of the Convention.
Adjustment
Strengthening
Weakening
Upward
No adj.
• Encourage ambitious initial offer
• Facilitate broader participation
• Discourage pulling out later
• May result in insufficient near-
term collective ambition
Downward
Advantage
Disadvantage
No adj.
Upward

11. 11 Climate Change Expert Group
Discussion questions
1. How to strike the right balance between including
flexibility in the agreement, providing predictability for
investors and ensuring environmental ambition?
2. What type of process is most likely to result in mitigation
contributions that are collectively ambitious enough to
keep the below 2-degree goal within reach?
3. Under what conditions, if any, could downward
adjustments (i.e. weakening) of mitigation contributions
take place?