The Copenhagen Accord: a significant

1
The Copenhagen Accord a significant first step
or a disastrously missed opportunity?

• Claire N Parker
• Environmental Policy Consultant
• claire.n.parker_at_btopenworld.com

2
Outline

• Background to a new global climate change regime
• Steps towards a new global regime
• The UN framework for the negotiations
• The Bali Action Plan
• The debate 2007-2009
• Copenhagen the process and the Accord
• Analysis of the Accord
• Who got what, who lost what
• What may the CPH achieve.
• What did it not achieve

3
Background to a new global climate change regime
4
The scientific analysis

• The IPCC is the recognised intergovernmental
  source of scientific advice
• Its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4 2007) forms the
  scientific basis for the current negotiations
• AR4 confirms average global temperature rise and
  other indicators of global warming

5
(No Transcript)
6
The scientific analysis

• The AR4 analyses the impacts for global average
  temperature changes

7
Why 2 degrees Celsius?
2C
8
The scientific analysis

• The AR4 projects global surface warming for
  various emission scenarios

9
Non mitigation emission scenarios projected t
increases
Source IPCC 2007
10
The scientific analysis

• The AR4 establishes a relationship between t
  increase and stabilisation concentrations of
  greenhouse gases (CO2 eq)

11
(No Transcript)
12
Important negotiation parameters

1. Limit for increase in global average
   temperature 2C
2. Stabilisation concentration for greenhouse gases
   in atmosphere 450 CO2 eq.
3. Mid term target (2020) 25-40 below 1990
   by developed countries
4. Peak year for emissions 2010-2020
5. Long term target 50 below 1990 global
   80-95 by developed countries

13
Caveat post AR4 (2007) scientific findings less
optimistic

• 2 C may be too high a temp increase, and 450ppm
  CO2eq. too high a concentration for avoiding
  dangerous climate change (e.g. sea level rise on
  small islands, impacts on corals1)
• increasingly, there are calls for 1.5C and
  350ppm CO2eq.
• Note CO2 concentration is now 386ppm
• Moreover, at current emission levels, 4C could
  happen by 2100 (UK MetOffice, Sept 20092)
• NL publication on News in Climate Science3
  reviews post- AR4 science

14
(Slow) steps towards a new global climate regime
2007- 2009
15
The UN process instruments

• UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Rio,
  1992
• stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in
  the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
  dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
  climate system.
• Kyoto Protocol , 1997
• developed countries adopt binding emission
  targets, amounting to -5 over 1990
• first commitment period (CP 1) 2008- 2012

16
The UN process 194 countries in negotiating
blocs

• G77 China
• AOSIS (small island states)
• OPEC/Saudi Arabia
• Latin America Caribbean
• African Group
• LDC group
• (Asian Group)
• European Union
• Umbrella Group (US, Japan, Canada, Norway,
  Australia, New Zealand, Russia)
• Environmental Integrity Group (Mexico, Korea,
  Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Monaco)

17
2007 a new post 2012 climate deal is needed

• The Kyoto Protocols 1st commitment period runs
  out in 2012
• The US, a major polluter and not a KP Party,
  needs to be brought into an agreement
• The emissions of major emerging economies in the
  developing world are rapidly rising
• The poorest and most vulnerable developing
  countries are already suffering from impacts and
  urgently need assistance to adapt

18
(No Transcript)
19
Dec 2007 two track negotiations given go-ahead

• 1. Bali Action Plan (BAP) on new global deal
• Mitigation
• Adaptation
• Finance and Transfer of Technology
• Shared vision (an agreed long term 2005
  mitigation target, or stabilisation goal)
• 2. Renewed KP commitments post 2012

20
What does BAP envisage?

• for developed countries economy-wide reduction
  commitments
• for developing countries nationally appropriate
  mitigation actions (NAMAs), supported by finance
  from developed countries
• Implementation of commitments, actions and
  support subject to monitoring, verification and
  reporting (mrv)

21
What does BAP envisage?

• A specific regime for Reducing Emissions from
  Deforestation and Forest Degradation in
  Developing Countries (REDD)
• Use of market mechanisms
• Adaptation framework
• The basis for a financial mechanism that provides
  new and additional finance
• A mechanism to transfer low C technology to
  developing countries

22
2008-2009 debatewhat do developing countries
want?

• Developing countries point to historical
  responsibility, to current per capita emissions,
  to technological and financial disadvantage, to
  development and poverty eradication prime goal
• They note lack of firm and sufficient reduction
  commitments from developed countries
• They want their NAMAs to be 100 voluntary, only
  mrvd for externally financed action
• Target and goals for developed countries only
• Rich nations should spend 0.5 of GDP on
  climate action in developing world

23
(No Transcript)
24
2008-2009 debatewhat do developed countries
want?

• Developed countries want developing countries
  NAMAs registered, quantified, mrvd
• They want major emerging economies to take on
  commitments China, India, South Africa, Brazil,
  Indonesia, Korea.
• They link financial support to mitigation results
  (except for poorest)

25
Debate on the reduction targets

• EU commits to 20 reduction below 1990 by 2020
  (30 if a satisfactory global deal is reached)
  and 80 by 2050
• Debate severely hampered by waiting for the US.
  Legislation passed by House June 09 incl. plans
  to cut emissions by 17 below 2005, which is 3-4
  below 1990 no firm international commitments
• All US allies in Umbrella Group make
  late-in-the process commitments, conditional on
  developing countries mitigation action

26
Pledges and commitments

• Australia (May 09) 15 below 2005 by 2020
• New Zealand (Aug 09) 10-20 below 1990
• Japan (Sept 09) 25 below 1990
• Norway (Nov 09) 40 below 1990
• Russia (Nov 09) 20- 25 below 1990
• All these pledges are conditional on CPH deal
  involving all major emitters or, for Russia,
  aspirational
• These EUs do not amount to the min 25 below
  1990 advised by IPCC

27
In any case, caveat numbers

• The Kyoto model relies on aggregate reduction
  numbers
• It allows some of the reductions to come from
• flexibility mechanisms, i.e. action outside the
  country which is then credited
• accounting for carbon sinks in the country
  itself (forests, agriculture)
• It hides changes in output, fuel conversion
• It does not necessarily reflect the extent to
  which the economy is being decarbonised

28
Bangkok, October 2009, coup-de-théâtre

• The US proposes a new regime which differs in its
  essence from the one envisaged so far
• replaces Kyoto Protocol
• based on bottom-up pledges from countries
  (developed and developing), as part of low C
  strategies, to be reviewed at x-2? years
  intervals
• puts a centralised mrv at its core assessing
  results in terms of CC, plus economic
  considerations
• Economic growth is inevitable, but that may
  change
• George W Bush

29

• The US proposal is to create a continuum
  between developed countries major or wealthy
  developing countries the majority of the other
  developing countries and the poorest (least
  developing countries, most African countries, the
  small islands)
• EU (reluctantly) agrees provided some modulation
• Developing countries reject- want to keep Kyoto,
  plus ??? vague about the rest
• Process is thrown off course, the texts dont
  progress, the positions harden

30
Copenhagen the Process and the Accord
31
One month before CPHBarcelona, November 2009

• Still no agreement on US proposal/ keeping KP
• Still no usable text(s) from BAP or KP processes
• Legally binding agreement in Copenhagen is no
  longer possible. Instead , a politically binding
  agreement.meaningless in legal terms but but
  still key to keep leaders accountable
• Decisions on a timetable for negotiating a
  legally binding agreement

32
A rush of targets from US and the major
developing countries

• US emission cuts 17 below 2005 by 2020 (eq. to
  3-4 over 1990), 42 by 2030, 83 by 2050
• China carbon intensity cut to 40 to 45 below
  2005 by 2020
• India carbon intensity cut to 20-25 below 2005
  by 2020
• Brazil emissions cut to 36-39 below 1994 by
  2020
• deforestation in Amazon cut by 80 by 2020
• South Korea emissions cut to 4 below 2005 by
  2020 (eq. to 30 over BAU )

33

• Indonesia emissions cut below the current
  emissions baseline (BAU) of 26-41 by 2020
  (cuts in deforestation a large part)
• Mexico emissions cut below the current emissions
  baseline (BAU) of 30 by 2020
• South Africa emissions cut below the current
  emissions baseline (BAU) of around 34 by 2020
  and by around 42 by 2025.

34
In the absence of useable texts, a draft by the
DK Presidency, which is leaked and creates a
diplomatic incident

• Draft on limited number of core issues
  (mitigation, finance) was the result of
  consultations with first 20, later 40
  delegations, deemed key to the outcome of CPH
• Proposals in it were much in line with the
  developed countries (mainly US) concepts
• Called for commitments on emission reductions
  from developing countries
• Offered a (not overly generous) financial deal

35
Developing countries denounce DK draft

• Lack of transparency, biased Presidency, attempts
  to divide the G77/ China Group
• China, India, Brazil, and South Africa (BASIC)
  draw up red lines beyond which they will not
  negotiate
• Africa, LDCs, SIDS get own controversies going
• Three processes in parallel, drafts,
  counter-drafts. positions entrenched on all
  sides, disputes over procedure, walk-outs

36
The last 48 hours

• Heads of State are now in CPH and want results,
  now!
• A group, deemed representative, of 20 HoS plus
  9 other HoD negotiates an agreement, in parallel
  to wider negotiations
• Bilateral and smaller meetings in margins
• Endgame is between US and BASIC countries, mainly
  China
• EU sidelined (not in the room when deal was
  done)
• Chinese concede on transparency- US drops long
  term global goal, legally binding agreement, and
  offers money

37
The Copenhagen Accord emerges what is in

• Aspirational 2C target, peak as soon as
  possible
• A pledge-and-review process of
• Quantified economy-wide emissions targets for
  2020 by developed countries (yet to be filled in)
• Nationally appropriate mitigation actions of
  developing country Parties (yet to be filled in)
• to be reported every 2 years

38
what is in (contd)

• Full and robust, international mrv system for
  developed countries, domestic mrv plus
  international consultations and analysis for
  developing
• Financial package of 30bn for 2010-11-12 and
  agreement on 100bn/yr by 2020, from public and
  private sources to assist developing countries to
  adapt, to reduce deforestation and to
  de-carbonize their development
• REDD regime to be established
• A mechanism for North-South transfer of
  technology
• Adaptation, with response measures
• Use of markets

39
and what is missing

• No quantified levels of collective ambition for
  emission reductions (2020, 2050).
• but 2050 goal to be reviewed 2015, incl.
  consideration of 1.5C limit
• No year for peaking of emissions
• No deadline for/commitment to a legally binding
  agreement no compliance mechanism

40
At the very end, lack of consensus. the take
note, opt in deal

• In plenary, a few countries (ALBA group and
  Sudan) question legitimacy of CPH Accord
• UNFCCC process adopts agreements by consensus DK
  President feels COP cannot adopt CPH accord
• after a chaotic night, COP takes note of the
  Accord
• countries will be asked to adhere to it, and to
  fill in their targets by 31 Jan 2010

41
Who got what?

• The USA obtained much of what it wanted
• bottom-up scheduling (pledges)
• no compliance mechanism
• sufficient transparency from China et al.
• not tying Congress to financial deal
• However, USA could not change the ongoing
  differentiation between developed/ developing
  countries 
• China had the upper hand, only concession being
  transparency (in exchange for securing financial
  aid for other, poorer developing countries and
  leaving any targets out). It reaffirmed (11 Jan)
  that it was satisfied w Accord and had shown
  that it would not be pushed around. It sees as
  essential for the US to make cuts comparable of
  those of other developed countries.

42
Who lost what?

• EU lost its leadership future regime likely to
  be modelled on US vision i.e. no binding
  international commitments with compliance regime
  
• EU also lost the overall reduction numbers by
  2020 and 2050, but it got transparency and the
  prospect of US legislation
• All vulnerable countries lost security these
  numbers would have provided
• SIDS lost their quest for immediate action
  towards 1.5C

43
What may the CPH Accord achieve?

• If (1) Accord is signed by the majority of
  countries, and targets/ action are sufficiently
  strong, (2) US legislation is passed in 2010
  and (3) the financial promises are fulfilled and
  additional to development aid
• then the Accord will go some way to harness the
  potential of developed and developing countries
  to address climate change
• It will leverage substantial finance for
  developing countries, including for halting
  deforestation and protecting forests

44
The CPH Accord does not achieve sufficient and
rapid response to the climate crisis

• In addition
• Business lacks the regulatory certainty to drive
  low C investment
• The multilateralist approach to the climate
  change issue and the credibility of the UNFCCC
  process are damaged
• CPH confirmed the new bipolar order whereby the
  US has to share hegemony w China
• the EU, India, Russia, Japan relegated to
  second league players and lost the initiative

45
Projected result of current mitigation pledges

• See Climate Action Tracker developed by Climate
  Analytics, Ecofys and the P I K
• http//www.climateactiontracker.org

46
References

• 1. Obura, D et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58
  (2009) 14281436
• 2. http//www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/
  latest/four-degrees.html
• 3. News in Climate Science and Exploring
  Boundaries, Netherlands Environmental Assessment
  Agency (PBL), Bilthoven, November 2009, PBL
  publication number 500114013
• 4. Slide 23
• UNEP/GRID-Arendal, National carbon dioxide (CO2)
  emissions per capita, UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and
  Graphics Library, http//maps.grida.no/go/graphic/
  national_carbon_dioxide_co2_emissions

47
Thank you