Realistic Expectations from Paris Dr Harlan L Watson

Realistic Expectations from Paris Dr. Harlan L. Watson Adjunct Scholar, Competitive Enterprise Institute Former Ambassador and Special Envoy to the U. N. Convention on Climate Change (UFCCC) Preparing for Paris: What to Expect from the U. N. ’s 2015 Climate Change Conference Cato Institute Washington, DC October 30, 2015

Outline • International Climate Change Negotiations History Ø UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Ø Kyoto Protocol (KP) Ø Bali, Copenhagen & Cancún Outcomes Ø Durban, Doha, Warsaw & Lima Outcomes Ø Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) • What has all this accomplished? • Major Issues • Likely Outcome(s)

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) • Adopted 9 May 1992; entered into force 21 March 1994. • Ultimate objective: “achieve. . stabilization of greenhouse gas [GHG] concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. . . “within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner”. • 195 countries & European Union (EU) are Parties; Conference of the Parties (COP) composed of all Parties is UNFCCC’s “supreme body” and usually meets annually. • Divides the world into three main groups: Ø Annex I Parties (43): 23 industrialized countries, EU, 14 countries with “economies in transition” (including Russia, Baltic States, and several Central and Eastern European countries), Cyprus, Malta, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Turkey. Ø “Annex II” Parties (24): All countries who were members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) members in 1992 (except Turkey) and the EU. Ø “Non-Annex I” Parties: All others (153). • Annex I Parties are to “take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof”. . . “according to the principles of equity and “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. ” • “The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on. . . [developed country Parties’] effective implementation of their commitments”. . . “related to financial resources and transfer of technology”. . . taking “fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties. ” • UNFCCC places financing and technology burdens on the 24 “Annex II” Parties, including: Ø Providing “new and additional financial resources to meet the agreed full costs incurred by developing country Parties in complying with their inventory and reporting obligations” and “such financial resources, including for the transfer of technology, needed by” those Parties “to meet the agreed full incremental costs of implementing measures” to meet their obligations. Ø Assisting “developing country Parties”. . . “particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in meeting costs of adaptation to those adverse effects. ” Ø Taking “all practicable steps to promote, facilitate and finance, as appropriate, the transfer of, or access to, environmentally sound technologies and know-how to other Parties, particularly developing country Parties, to enable them to implement” Convention provisions.

Kyoto Protocol (KP) • Adopted 11 December 1997; entered into force 16 February 2005. • 191 countries & EU are Parties; Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) composed of all Parties is KP’s “supreme body” and usually meets with the COP annually. • Set GHG emissions limits for 38 developed countries & EU for 20082012, including all UNFCCC Annex I except U. S. ; no emissions limits for developing countries. Canada withdrew in 2012. • Contains three flexibility mechanisms (joint implementation, clean development mechanism, and emissions trading) allowing countries to achieve a proportion of their commitments by earning credits for GHG emissions avoided or GHG removals achieved in other countries. • Negotiations on KP second commitment period launched at 2005 CMP 1 in Montreal. • KP did not “expire” after 2012; rather, no further legally-binding reductions are required after 2012. • 2011 CMP 7 at Durbin, South Africa agreed to a KP second commitment period from 2013 -2020. • 2012 CMP 8 at Doha, Qatar agreed to a KP second commitment period, with Japan, New Zealand Russia declining to participate. • Acceptance of Doha Amendment by 144 Parties required before it enters into force; as of 9 October 2015, 50 Parties have accepted.

UNFCCC Annex I and Annex II Parties Source: http: //unfccc. int/files/essential_background/convention/background/application/pdf/convention_text_with_annexes_english_for_posting. pdf (United Nations Convention on Climate Change, pp. 19 -21).

UNFCCC Organizational Structure Source: http: //unfccc. int/files/inc/graphics/image/png/unfccc_bodies_large. png

Path to Paris— 1: Bali, Copenhagen & Cancún 2007 COP 13 in Bali, Indonesia • Adopted Bali Action Plan launching “a comprehensive process to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action, now, up to and beyond 2012, in order to reach an agreed outcome and adopt a decision” at COP 15 in Copenhagen in 2009. Called for: Ø A “shared vision for long-term cooperative action, including a long-term goal for emissions reductions, to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention, in accordance with. . . in particular the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, ” and Ø “Enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change” and “enhanced action” on adaptation, technology development and transfer, and provision of financial resources and investment to support action on mitigation, adaptation, and technology cooperation. • Negotiations to be conducted under a subsidiary body under the Convention: “Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperation under the Convention” (AWG-LCA). 2009 COP 15 in Copenhagen • COP “took note” of 12 -paragraph Copenhagen Accord, a non-legally-binding political agreement negotiated by a small group of countries near end of meeting, and extended the AWG-LCA “with a view to presenting the outcome of its work” at COP 16 in Cancún; subsequently “expressed their intention to be listed as agreeing to the Accord. ” 2010 COP 16 in Cancún, Mexico • Brought most of the Copenhagen Accord back into the negotiations process, extended AWG-LCA. • Created the Green Climate Fund and established the Adaptation Committee and the Technology Mechanism (which includes the Technology Executive Committee and Climate Technology Centre and Network).

Path to Paris— 2: Durban, Doha, Warsaw & Lima 2011 COP 17 & CMP 7 in Durban, South Africa • COP launched the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) with a mandate “to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties” to be completed by 2015 and begin implementation after 2020, and address pre-2020 ambition. • CMP agreed to a KP second commitment period. 2012 COP 18 & CMP 8 in Doha, Qatar • COP agreed to terminate the AWG-LCA and negotiations under the Bali Action Plan, and to consider loss and damage, “such as an institutional mechanism to address loss and damage in developing countries particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. ” • CMP agreed to KP amendments to establish its second commitment period. 2013 COP 19 in Warsaw, Poland • COP invited Parties to initiate or intensify domestic preparations for their intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), and established the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage. 2014 COP 20 in Lima, Peru • COP adopted “Lima Call for Climate Action, ” including elaboration of draft negotiating text elements, the process for submitting and reviewing INDCs and addresses enhancing pre-2020 ambition; also helped operationalize the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage.

Path to Paris— 3: Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) • First met in May 2012; 14 meetings to date • ADP Text Negotiations Underway in 2015 Ø 8 -13 February in Geneva: Negotiations began with Lima Call for Climate Action’s 39 -page “Elements for a draft negotiating text”; agreed to a 90 -page “compilation text” as basis for further negotiations. Ø 1 -11 June in Bonn: Produced an 85 -page “Revised streamlined and consolidated text, ” and a 68 -page “Working Document. ” Tasked ADP Co-Chairs (Dan Reifsnyder of the U. S. State Department and Ahmed Djoghlaf of Algeria) to prepare “a fully streamlined, consolidated, clear and concise version of the Geneva Negotiating Text” to be considered at its next meeting. Ø 31 August-4 September in Bonn: Considered Co-Chairs’ 88 -page effort, including a 19 -page draft agreement and 32 -page draft decision; Co-Chairs asked to prepare new text for next meeting. Ø 19 -23 October in Bonn to consider Co-Chair’s latest effort— 23 pages of text; 10 for an agreement and 3 for accompanying decisions. Further discussions resulted in 59 pages of text to be considered at Paris— 31 for an agreement and 20 for accompanying decisions. UNFCCC Secretariat is also preparing a ”technical paper” on the text to identify overlaps, redundancies, etc. • 128 INDC submissions as of 29 October 2015 reflecting 155 countries (including the 28 EU Member States), and covering around 87% of 2010 (excluding Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry) and 88% of global population. * *Source: http: //climateactiontracker. org/indcs. html.

What Has All This Accomplished? • From 1990 to 2012: Ø World GHG emissions up 40. 0% Ø Annex I GHG emission down 5. 6% Ø Annex II GHG emissions down 4. 4 % Ø Non-Annex I GHG emissions up 87. 0% • From 1990 to 2012: Ø World CO 2 emissions from fuel combustion up 33. 9% Ø Annex I CO 2 emissions from fuel combustion down 5. 7% Ø Annex II CO 2 emissions from fuel combustion up 3. 6 % Ø Non-Annex I CO 2 emissions from fuel combustion up 63. 1% Sources: European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC)/PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency GHG (CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, F-gases) emission time series 1990 -2012 per region/country at http: //edgar. jrc. europa. eu/overview. php? v=GHGts 19902012; and International Energy Agency, “CO 2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion Highlights 2014” at https: //www. iea. org/media/freepublications/stats/CO 2_Emissions_From_Fuel_Combustion_Highlights_2014. XLS ,

Major Issues • Developed country provision of financing and technology to developing countries for mitigation of net GHG emissions and adaptation to climate change. Ø Feasibility of developed country financing commitment of $100 billion/year by 2020, (and more beyond), which many developing countries consider inadequate. Ø Loss and damage. Ø Protection of intellectual property rights for technologies related to climate change mitigation and adaptation. • Differentiation: Developed country and developing country commitments/actions to reduce net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Ø What should be developed and/or major developing countries commitments/actions? Ø What baseline? • Transparency: Measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) of developed and developing country commitments/ actions and provision of finance and technology. Ø What exactly is to be measured, reported and verified, and what criteria/metrics should be used? Ø How are developed and developing country commitments/actions and developed country provision of finance, technology and capacity building to be measured, reported and verified? Ø Who does the measuring, monitoring, and reporting and how often should such measuring, monitoring, and reporting take place? Ø What are the institutional, governance, legal implications? • Adaption/mitigation balance. • Role of emissions trading/market mechanisms. Ø What period? • Legal Form of the agreement(s). Ø Top-down (i. e. , KP-like) vs. “bottom-up”. Ø “Hybrid” approach. • Shared vision for long-term cooperative action. Ø Is holding temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius either sufficient or feasible? Ø Is a global emissions reduction goal of 50% below 1990 (or 60% below 2010) levels by 2050 or total decarbonization by 2100 feasible? Ø What are the implications of such goals for developed and developing countries?

Likely Outcome(s) • An agreement, with no legally-binding emissions targets and timetables but with legally-binding INDC reporting provisions and reviews at 5 -year intervals. • Non-legally binding language on finance, but reference to jointly mobilizing $100 billion from all sources by 2020. • Reference to long-term (2100) goals of limiting warming to 1. 5/2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels and total decarbonization. • Call for elimination of fossil-fuel subsidies. • Balance UNFCCC focus on mitigation and adaptation. • Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage implementation referenced, but not enhanced. • Note that for the Kyoto Protocol it took 8 (1997 -2005) years to agree on the rules of implementation, so years of work ahead to implement whatever comes out of Paris.