This document summarizes key issues from climate change negotiations leading up to the 2015 Paris conference. It discusses differing perspectives between Northern and Southern countries on emissions responsibilities and targets. Past negotiations have moved backwards from binding commitments to voluntary actions. The second Kyoto commitment period saw few country ratifications and represents a small portion of global emissions. The Copenhagen and Lima conferences failed to set ambitious reduction targets. Key issues for Paris include establishing low carbon development pathways, financing for adaptation, addressing loss and damage, and including community voices in the process.

1. Lima to Paris: Key issues
Nafisa Goga D’Souza
Climate Change Regional Seminar
3rd
and 4th
March 2015, Mumbai

2. Southern experience with the negotiation
process

3. Underlying Contentious Issues
• Differing North South Perspectives historical vs
future emissions
• Country vs Global Interests
• Changing country Alliances: Southern voices are
disparate

4. Negotiations Context:
Moving Backwards
• Country negotiations for 20 years
• Negotiation pathway has moved
backwards-from legally binding
commitments to voluntarism
• Wide gap between what needs to
be done and what is actually done
and proposed

5. Status of Kyoto:
First Commitment Period: 2008-2012
Targets met due to
the economic
collapse of Eastern
European countries
Shifting the
burden to
developing
countries
Targets violated: 1990-2012
Country Target Emissions
Canada -6% +18%
NZ Stabilisation +25%
US -7% +4.7%
Japan -6% +16%
Iceland +10% +30%
 Signed 1997 at Kyoto; In force 2005; 5.2% reduction below 1990 level
between 2008-2012
 Overall 16 per cent cut below 1990 levels, compared with the 5.2 per
cent promised
 In the same period, global emissions have risen by 50 per cent,
due to rapid industrialisation of eg: China

6. Emission Pathway: The Case of United Kingdom
Drop
by
23%
Total
carbon
footprint-
increase of
around 10
per cent
since 1990
Energy economist Dieter Helm, University of Oxford asked recently:
"What exactly is the point of reducing emissions in Europe if it encourages energy-intensive indu
Fundamental loophole

7. Status of Kyoto:
Second Commitment Period 2013-2020
• Second compliance period up to 2020
• As of Feb 2015 only 25 countries have
ratified
• Canada, Russia, Japan, New Zealand
pulled out
• Represents only 14% of global
emissions

8. Copenhagen outcome: 2009
On the one hand
more than 90
countries
representing some
80% of global
emissions submitted
pledges under the
agreements.
On the other hand targets
too weak: less than half of
the reductions needed by
2020.
Targets of the developing
world were greater than the
targets of the developed
world

9. Lima 2014: Call for Climate Action
"After two weeks of fruitless
negotiations among countries on
how to steer clear of irreversible
damage from climate
change...parties lacked a sense
of urgency, refusing to step out
of their comfort zones...
At the same time
“in communities across the globe momentum
for change is growing.“ (ACT Alliance)

10. LIMA Call for Climate Action
• No new commitment from parties
• Template for negotiations in Paris
• Geneva meeting : 86 paged
document by the parties

11. Why Paris 2015 is crucial
Must create a New International Climate
Agreement by Paris-CoP 21
In order to adopt a new Protocol, a legal
instrument or agreed outcome with legal force
for action post 2020 will be necessary

12. KEY ISSUES
 Low Carbon Path (Mitigation)
 Adaptation
 Loss and Damage
 Finance

13. Low Carbon Path
(Mitigation)

14. LCP: Intended Nationally Determined
Contributions
Countries collectively aim
to limit average global
temperature rise to 2
degrees C
Contributions in the
context of their national
priorities, circumstances
and capabilities
Ambitious, Transparent and Equitable
INTERNATIONAL
NATIONAL
Top Down System
Bottom Up System

15. Sticky Issues: Low Carbon Path
• Differing North/South perspective of what INDCs
should include
• Will INDCs enable countries to bridge the gap between
what science requires and what is being put on the
table by each country?
• Dilution: “according to national circumstances”
• Differing country positions on MRV

16. INDCs-Country Perspectives
PM Sheikh Hasina at Climate Summit: “INDCs must be measurable and
verifiable. But, new and additional resources will be needed for their
implementation.”
Nepal on behalf of LDCs: “The LDCs believe that INDCs should form the
first step toward the mitigation component of the 2015 Agreement
Pakistan agrees that INDCs should reflect mitigation, adaptation, and
the means of implementation, consistent with Parties' commitments
under the Convention (CBDR)
President Rajapaksa at Climate Summit: “All parties to the
Convention must expedite domestic preparations for INDCs”.
Supports INDCs, but must include adaptation,
technology transfer and finance to be included;
objected to verification

17. REDD Mechanism
• REDD: Reducing emissions from deforestation in
developing countries;
• REDD+: forest degradation, conservation an
forest management
• Mechanism being negotiated since CoP 11
• Forests accounts for 17-29% of global
greenhouse gas emissions.
• Objective to mitigate Climate Change through
reducing net emissions of GHGs

18. Adaptation

19. Adaptation

20. MILESTONES
• CoP 7: 2001-Marrakesh-LDC Work Programme
Ongoing support for NAPAs
• CoP 12: 2006- Nairobi Work Programme
SBSTA: 5 year project to address impacts, vulnerability
and adaptation
• CoP16: 2010-Cancun-Cancun Adaptation Framework:
Adaptation Committee established and NAPs facilitated
• During CoP 20: , countries also made significant progress in
elevating adaptation onto the same level as action to cut
and curb emissions.

21. NAPAs/NAPs
15 priority areas to reduce vulnerability in coastal communities to
impacts of CC-Final Report 2005, updated 2009, Currently has a
comprehensive Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan
Thematic Area:
Infrastructure/Climate Change Risk Management
Completed 2012
Not LDC; hence NAP support facilitated at Cancun in 2010
for countries not part of LDCs
Not LDC; National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy,
2011-2016 submitted 2010
NAPCC and SAPCC process

22. Adaptation: Issues
Requirement
Utilisation Process
Calculation of costs

23. Finance: Unspent Funds
Special Funds Budget US $
Mn
Expenditure
Special Climate Change Fund 107 59.8
Least Developed Countries
Fund
182 47
Adaptation Fund (under KP) 33 0
Green Climate Fund (under
Convention)
10 billion
US $100 billion per year by 2020

24. Loss and Damage: Demands
• Separate item within the Paris agreement.
• Asking for compensation regime and a
displacement coordination facility
• Finance for Loss and Damage separate from
adaptation finance.

25. What we would like to see?
• Ambitious action before and after 2020
• Strong legal framework and clear rules
• Central role for equity
• A long term approach
• Finance for adaptation and the low carbon transition
• Clear links to the 2015 Sustainable Development Goal
• Climate Action should fulfill human rights
for all.

26. The Way Forward
• Participation in Country
level advocacy on
equity issues
• Southern Voices at
Paris CoP needed

27. Faith-based Communities: Challenges
• Identity development of faith based groups
• Collective voice is increasingly a challenge
because of differing orientations
• Substantive engagement in policy issues
demands attention to new skill sets

28. Community Voices
Must Be Heard