Total: Countries have used different base year and some included the use of emissions trading and different LULUCF activities – aggregated between 17-24%, not sufficiently, still more than 10% below the scienceRussia announced recently informally 20-25%/2020/1990 with USA announcement 17%/2020/2005 (5.5%/2020/1990) still 6% below the low threshold of the science25% Kazakhstan – 0/20012/15%/2020/1992
The new US Administration has indicated a sharp turn in the position of the US on climate change. This followed by active engagement of the US delegation in the international negotiations and by a number of domestic legislative initiatives that give indication of the international commitment that US could be prepared to undertake post-2012. The American Clean Energy Security Act (ACESA), introduced by U.S. Representatives Henry Waxman and Edward Markey (‘Waxman-Markey bill) passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on 26 June 2009. The act sets progressively tightening legally binding caps on the absolute GHG emissions of large US emitters, including electric power stations, manufacturing facilities, and oil refineries. These sources would be required to reduce their GHG emissions 17% below 2005 levels (equivalent to roughly 4% below 1990 levels) by 2020, and 83% below 2005 levels (equivalent to roughly 80% below 1990 levels) by 2050. The bill also establishes a cap-and-trade system; allowances are bankable; and the number of allowances issued annually will be reduced steeply from 2012 to 2050. The bill also makes provisions for the international offsets, which will trade at 1:1 through 2016, but starting in 2017 emitters must tender 5 international offsets for every 4 tons of U.S. compliance. The bill establishes four mechanisms for international offsets: -Allowance trading, for nations with comparable cap-and-trade programs. -Forest credits. US may enter into agreements with countries on reducing emissions from deforestation (REDD). To be eligible for offset crediting, countries will have to demonstrate, beginning five years from the start of the program (extendable eight more years in the case of small-emitting and least developed countries), reductions in total emissions from deforestation nation-wide, or in their large-emitting states or provinces, from a baseline that results in zero net deforestation within 20 years. The bill sets aside 5% of the U.S. allowance for assistance to tropical forest countries in preparing to participate in this program. -Sectoral credits. The EPA will prepare a sectoral crediting list – a list of nations with high GHG emissions or comparatively high levels of income, and of sectors whose emissions would be capped if they were in the U.S. For listed nations and sectors, credits can only be issued to those nations/sectors that adopt domestically enforceable sectoral baselines of absolute emissions set at levels that are below business as usual and are consistent with two degrees Celsius or 450 ppm goal, and then achieve absolute reductions from those baselines. Nations and sectors on the list that adopt no-lose sectoral intensity targets will not be able to sell offsets into the U.S. market. -Project credits. The bill authorizes the EPA Administrator to issue offset credits for reductions from projects in nations that have not capped emissions, if the reductions are recognized by a body established under the UNFCCC that provides assurances of integrity equal to or greater than the U.S. domestic offset program. Starting in 2016, the EPA may not issue project credits for projects in countries or sectors on the sectoral crediting list. Therefore, a clear signal is given that US would likely accept CERs produced in less developed countries under the CDM and would only consider crediting sectoral and national programmes in more advanced developing countries as of 2016. The bill now will be considered by the Senate and may undergo further changes in the process.
The financial mechanism of the UNFCCC will be substantially changed by the Cancun Agreement
Eligible activities are reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, conservation of forest carbon stocks, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
Further improvements of the CDM: governance of the Executive Board; accreditation procedures; baseline and monitoring methodologies and additionality; standardized baselines; issuance of CERs;
Climate Change: Via Copenhagen, Cancun, Bangkok on the road to Durban
Via Copenhagen, Cancun, Bangkok on the road to Durban <br />Daniela Stoycheva, Climate Change Policy Advisor<br />BBL – Bratislava – 15 April 2011<br />
COP 15 / MOP 5 – 2009 Copenhagen<br />The political will has never been stronger to reach an agreed outcome - unprecedented attendance – 119 heads of states; 45 000 participants<br />Not able to reach comprehensive legally binding agreement, instead a political declaration – Copenhagen Accord<br />AWGs work continues, negotiating text forwarded in order legally binding agreement to be reached in Dec. 2010 at COP 16 in Mexico<br />Some pledges for emission reductions and financial support already on the table<br />
Copenhagen Accord’s main features- (1)<br />Climate change – one of the greatest challenges of our time<br />Agree that deep cuts in global emissions needed to keep 2C <br />Peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible <br />Economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries<br />Low-emission development strategy is indispensable to sustainable development<br />Enhanced action on adaptation; REDD+ mechanism<br />Establish a Technology Mechanism <br />Annex I Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020 – MRVed<br />Non-Annex I Parties will implement mitigation actions, subject to their domestic MRV and will be reported through their NCs every 2 years, int. supported – int. MRV - registry<br />
Copenhagen Accord’s main features – (2)<br /><ul><li> Commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching 30 billion $ for the period 2010 - 2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation. (Funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa)
Developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly 100 billion $ a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries (in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation)
A significant portion of such funding should flow through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund </li></li></ul><li>Quantified emission reduction of the developed countries by 2020 (proposed so far)<br />Australia -15%or 25% 2000<br /> Belarus-- 5 -10%1990<br /> Canada-- 17%2005<br /> Croatia - 5% (+ 6) 1990<br />EС-27-- 20 -30% 1990<br /> Island-- 30%1990<br /> Japan-- 25% 1990<br />Lichtenstein -- 20 - 30% 1990<br />Monaco - 30% 1990<br />New Zealand - - 10 - 20 % 1990<br /> Norway-- 30- 40%1990<br />Russian Fed.- - 15 -25% 1990<br /> Switzerland -- 20 -30%1990<br /> Ukraine -- 20%1990<br />Kazakhstan - -15% 1992<br />
Reduction commitments under the Convention<br />By announcing a provisional target for USA - 17%/2020/2005 (contingent on the support of Congress), (42%/2030; 83%/2050) & EPA<br />Several advanced developing countries announced readiness to undertake internationalized mitigation actions<br />China: 40-45 % reduction in carbon intensity by 2020<br />Brazil:- 36%-39% in 2020 by improved protection of the Amazon forests. <br />South Korea: 4 % below 2005 levels by 2020. <br />South Africa – 34% below BAU 2020.<br />Mexico - 50 million tons/y starting in 2012, its own means and funds<br />LEDS and NAMAs already in place<br />
RBEC Reduction commitments under the Convention<br />
Four political essentials to be resolved to make post 2012 regime work<br />1. Clarity on targets for industrialized countries<br />2. Clarity on nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries <br />3. Clarity on how to generate support for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries<br />4. Clarity on the governance structures to manage the generated support<br />
Major breakthrough in Cancun – COP16/MOP6, 2010 <br /><ul><li>COP adopted the Cancun Agreement - a historic set of decisions laying the foundation to tackle climate change through a new post-2012 regime
A “balanced package of decisions” was adopted under the two-track Bali Road Map, both under the Kyoto Protocol and the UNFCCC
The confidence of the international community in the UN process and in multilateralism was restored</li></li></ul><li>Mitigation<br /><ul><li>The Cancun package does not present an agreement on defining the Second Commitment Period to the KP, however, governments committed to working towards this and avoiding a gap between the 1st and 2nd commitment periods
It encourages governments to prepare LCDS in the context of SD. Moreover, developing countries will undertake NAMAs in the context of SD
For NAMAs that receive int. support – int. MRV, for not int. supported - domestic MRV and reporting actions through new, enhanced national communications every four years.</li></li></ul><li>Adaptation<br />Cancun Adaptation Framework was established:<br /><ul><li>A process will be set to enable developing countries to formulate and implement national adaptation plans.
Establishment of regional centres and networks, and an international centre to enhance adaptation.
Adaptation Committee was established - technical support and guidance, strengthen and consolidate relevant information, promote synergies and strengthening engagement with national, regional and international organizations. It will also serve as a “match-maker” for funding by providing information and recommendations.
Establishes a work programmefor losses and damages to consider approaches to reducing the negative impacts for developing countries. </li></li></ul><li>Finance<br /><ul><li>The Cancun Agreement establishes the Green Climate Fund (GCF) as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC, alongside the GEF,
Adopts the goal of mobilizing $100bn per annum by 2020 from multiple sources, and takes note of the report of the SG’s High-level Advisory Group’s
The GCF will be designed and set up by a transitional committee of 40 members ( Relevant UN Agencies, IFIs, MDBs, the UNFCCC Secretariat and GEF Secretariat are all invited to second staff to support the transitional committee)
Overarching the new fund, as well as the GEF and Adaptation Fund, will be a new Standing Committee on finance under the Convention. </li></li></ul><li>REDD+<br /><ul><li>Established a formal REDD mechanism, including readiness, pilot and results-based phases.
The mechanism request parties to develop a national strategy/plan, a national emission/forest reference emission level, a robust national system for MRV of actions, and a system for monitoring and reporting compliance with safeguards.
The mechanism acknowledges that the readiness and pilot phases require significant capacity building and technical assistance. </li></li></ul><li>Technology<br />Technology Mechanism was established<br /><ul><li>The mechanism will have three components: 1) Technology Executive Committee 2) Climate Technology Centre and 3) Climate Technology Network
The focus of the Technology Mechanism is large, including R&D, deployment and diffusion of soft and hard technologies, national systems of innovation, development of technology action plans, and technical assistance. Intellectual Property is not referenced in the text.</li></li></ul><li>Market Mechanisms <br /><ul><li>On sectoral crediting of NAMAs the decision proposes launching work stream in 2011 to design a mechanism. In the meantime the text encourages international organizations to pursue readiness activities.
Major amendments were made to the CDM:</li></ul>The inclusion of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in CDM <br />Further improvements of the CDM procedures<br />Better regional and subregional distribution and capacity building for countries with fewer than 10 CDM projects for which creation of a loan facility was decided, whereby an institution will be selected as an implementing agency. The decision acknowledges that it could be an UN agency, which is of importance for the UNDP in the view of its activities under the MDG Carbon Facility. <br />On JI: further improvement of the verification procedures and accreditation and charging of fees for JI track 1 projects payable upon publication of documents on the UNFCCC website. <br />
Decisions for EITs and Turkey<br />The agreement includes additionally 2 decisions: for Parties included in Annex I undergoing the process of transition to a market economy (EITs) and a Party whose special circumstances are recognized by the COP (Turkey). <br />a process was settled for the EITs to consider promoting access to technology, capacity building and finance in order to enhance their ability to develop low-emission economies, and for Turkey to consider promoting access to technology, capacity building and finance in order to better implement the Convention.<br />
Bangkok Climate Talks 2011<br />Three workshops: Annex I commitments; NAMAs; Technology<br />AWG-LCA – agenda = work programme<br />AWG-KP – Annex I commitments – political before technical <br />
The work towards a comprehensive and balanced outcome in Durban is carried out under the two AWGs, which main tasks are:<br />AWG-KP: the resolution of key issues concerning the commitments of the developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol; in particular, overcoming the danger that there will be no legally binding limitations on emissions for any countries after the end of the first commitment period of the KP (avoiding gap) <br />AWG-LCA: delivering on the Cancun Agreements to ensure that the institutions and frameworks required therein are in place in 2012 in accordance with the deadlines set out <br />
Thank you !<br />firstname.lastname@example.org<br />