"you have been negotiating all my life": rio to paris
Post on 07-Feb-2017
227 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
“YOU HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATING ALL MY LIFE.”
“YOU HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATING ALL MY LIFE.”
Climate negotiations from Rio (1992) to Paris (2015)
OUTLINE1. Introduction: Who I am and what I’m talking about2. Assumptions: What I take for granted3. The Convention4. The Berlin Mandate and the Kyoto Protocol
OUTLINE: PART 21. The Bali Action Plan and Copenhagen2. The 2011 Durban reset: ‘applicable to all’3. Negotiations from 2012-20144. Questions
WHO I AM AND WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT
1. Former New Zealand lawyer
2. My research: Differentiation
3. Climate activist
ASSUMPTIONS
I assume that mainstream climate science is correct.
MAINSTREAM CLIMATE SCIENCE IS CORRECT
1. Climate change is real (It’s a thing).2. Climate change is anthropogenic (We’re causing it).3. Climate change is harmful (It will be bad for people
and businesses).
THE SCIENCE1. Mean global temperatures have
warmed by 1ºC (Hawkins).2. Atmospheric CO2 is now
consistently above 400ppm.3. Methane has 21 times the impact
of CO2 over 100 years (UNFCCC).4. Existing consented fossil fuel
projects blow our 2ºC emissions budget (OCI)
5. We are looking at 2.7-3.5ºC warming this century (Hare et al).
THE UNFCCC FROM 1992-2009
1. Rio 1992: The Convention
2. Berlin Mandate
3. Kyoto Protocol
4. Bali Action Plan
5. Copenhagen
THE CONVENTION (1992)
• The Convention is an overarching umbrella
• Sets out normative principles and ultimate objective (avoiding dangerous climate change)
• Basis for Secretariat and COP process
THE CONVENTION (1992)The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of
equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating
climate change and the adverse effects thereof.- UNFCCC, art 3(1)
[…] taking into account [the UNFCCC Parties’] common but differentiated responsibilities and their specific national and
regional development priorities, objectives and circumstances […]- UNFCCC, art 4
AN EMERGING GENERAL PRINCIPLE?
‘14. The obligations of States are common but differentiated.’- Oslo Principles, 2015
‘In my view, the [common but differentiated responsibilities] principle is not necessary, and it is not helpful. […] To me, this notion is nowhere close to being either hard or soft law […]’
- Susan Biniaz, US Department of State, 2002
BERLIN TO KYOTO (1995-1997)
‘In the developed world only two people ride in a car, and yet you want us to give up riding on a bus.’- Lead Chinese negotiator, COP 3 in Kyoto, 1997
• Berlin mandate imposed strict firewall of differentiation• Carried over into Kyoto Protocol
THE BALI ACTION PLAN (2007-2009)
1. Quantified emissions limitation and reduction objectives (QELROS) for Annex I Parties
2. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAS) for Non-Annex Parties
COPENHAGEN
Oh dear.
NEGOTIATING DYNAMICS Ambitious / Cooperative ( / pro-binding)
Lacking ambition, lacking cooperation ( / anti-binding)
DevelopedDeveloping
NEGOTIATING DYNAMICS Ambitious / Cooperative
Lacking ambition, lacking cooperation
DevelopedDeveloping
Europe
Umbrella GroupLMDCs
BASIC
LDCs
SIDS / AOSIS
NEGOTIATING DYNAMICS Ambitious / Cooperative
Lacking ambition, lacking cooperation
DevelopedDeveloping
Europe
Umbrella GroupLMDCs
BASIC
LDCs
SIDS / AOSIS
High AmbitionCoalition???
TWO ARCHITECTURES FOR MITIGATION COMMITMENTS
1. Top down• Idealised model of Kyoto Protocol• Protocol sets out each Parties’ commitment
2. Bottom up• Each Party sets their own target• Copenhagen Accord and Cancun Agreements
THE DURBAN RESET: APPLICABLE TO ALL
• New process launched.• Three key points:
1. an agreement ‘with legal force’2. ‘under the Convention applicable to all
Parties’3. to be agreed in 2015 and implemented from
2020
FROM DOHA TO LIMA• Repeated debates about equity and differentiation• Without prejudice ‘Intended Nationally Determined
Contribution’ process• Lima Call for Climate Action confirms Parties’ will be
differentiated – but how?
THE 2015 INDC PROCESS
• Bottom up commitments
• But not binding – without prejudice
• Due August 2015, but ‘final’ deadline October 2015
• NGOs and UNFCCC then assessed their cumulative effect
– getting us to 2.7 C – 3.5 C.
GENEVA (JANUARY 2015)
• A draft text
• But no ‘streamlining’
• 90 pages
• Contained the architectures of about five possible treaties
ADP 2.8 IN BONN (JUNE AND AUGUST 2015)
• The ‘Chair’s Tool’
• Narrowing in towards agreement
• But still unsure: What’s in, what’s out, what’s where?
• Five days of negotiations before Paris in October.
(C) THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT
• Agreed last December, signed in April.• Aims to limit warming to “well below 2ºC” and aim for 1.5ºC
(art 2).• Nationally determined mitigation targets to be reviewed every
five years:• “Facilitative dialogue” in 2018 (Decision, cl 20).• “Global stocktake” of mitigation commitments
scheduled for 2023 (art 14).• Wide range of (less relevant) finance and adaptation
mechanisms.
THE REVIEWS ARE KEY
• Current targets have moved us ~1ºC closer to goal.
• But we’ll have blown our 2ºC emissions budget by 2036 (New Scientist) unless we ramp up ambition.
• Climate Interactive and Climate Action Tracker both present mitigation pathways for 1.5ºC and 2ºC.
• Possible, but challenging.
QUESTIONS?
(Yes, that’s a negotiator sleeping)
top related