Mechanisms of international cooperation

The IPCC, the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol

Session 5

Introduction

An apparent paradox The action of a single country in the fight against climate change is

meaningless. At the same time, the participation of some countries is a necessary

condition for a successful agreement. Problem of the free-rider

How to translate a scientific consensus into collective action Took a long time to build up Relationship between science and policy International cooperation on climate change was first a story of

scientific cooperation

The need for international cooperation

Climate change as a global public ‘bad’ Climate change as a market failure: global externality Affects all peoples and all generations, though diversely The protection of climate can only be provided through

international cooperation

Difficulties of international cooperation Tragedy of the commons Free rider Need for a global climate regime

Three key mechanisms of international cooperation

1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Established in 1988 jointly by UNEP and WMO Open to all member countries of UNEP and WMO Main task: assess the risks and impacts of climate

change Main outcome: the Assessment Reports, issued every 5

or 6 years (4 reports so far) About 2,500 (unpaid) scientists, appointed by their

government: lead authors, contributing authors, reviewers

Structure of the IPCC

The scientific process

The IPCC does not carry out any research The Assessment Reports are just a synthesis of

previously published works Triple peer-reviewing

Peer-review at the time of publication of original works Scientific peer-review by experts Political peer-review by governments

The reports need to be approved by both all scientists and all governments: they are bpth a scientific and a political document

Reports organised on the basis of scenarios

Comments and criticisms

Highly authoritative, due to intensive peer-reviewing But this authority is currently being questioned: ‘climate gate’, mistake

about the Himalaya glaciers, etc. The IPCC as a political actor How to address these criticisms? Can we doubt about climate science?

Minimal consensus Are the reports too prudent and conservative?

Scenarios underestimate reality Need for revision Need for a global reform of the IPCC?

2. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Main outcome of IPCC and the Rio Earth Summit (1992), and first international agreement on climate

Choice between 2 possible options: A global treaty on the atmosphere A treaty focused on climate change

General objective: the stabilisation of a GHG concentration at a level that would avoid dangerous interference with the climate

Two key priciples: Common but differentiated responsibility Respective capacities.

Not binding, no mandatory limits for GHG emissions. Sole obligation: GHG inventory to be submitted each year.

Three important mechanisms: Mandatory protocols Countries divided in Annex I countries, Annex II countries (a

subset of Annex I) and developing countries COP to be held every year

3. The Kyoto Protocol

Mandatory update of UNFCCC

Opened for signature in 1997, entered into force 8 years later

Conditions: 55 parties, and 55% of CO2 emissions

176 countries have ratified. Only 37 have to reduce their emissions

General design of the Protocol

Fixed term: expires in 2012 General objectives: cut GHG emissions by an average

5% from 1990 (base year) Underpinning principle: common but differentiated

responsibility Distinction between Annex I countries and non Annex I

countries Flexible mechanisms Heavy emphasis on mitigation, little emphasis on

adaptation

Kyoto and Europe

All EU-members’ ratifications deposited simultaneoulsy on 31 May 2002

EU counted as an individual entity EU produces about 22% of gas emissions Agreed to a cut of 8% from 1990 levels One of the major supporters of the treaty EU elected to be treated as a ‘bubble’, and created an EU

Emissions Trading Scheme France: 0%. No need to cut emissions Germany: -21%. Has reduced its emissions by 17.2% between 1990

and 2004. UK: -12.5%. Appears to be on course to meet its target.

Different commitments

Flexible mechanisms

Innovative aspect of the Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms relying on the market, rather than on

states Highly criticised as paramount of ‘environmental

liberalism’ Three mechanisms:

Carbon market (‘cap and trade’) Clean Development Mechanism Joint Implementation

The carbon market:The EU Emission Trading Scheme

General principle: maximisation of economic efficiency – at the expense of ethics?

Industries are given quotas of emission allowances Application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle Scheme started in 2005, all 27 countries take part Problems:

Price of carbon highly versatile Covers about half of the EU’s CO2 emissions Too many quotas on the market

Second phase 2008-2012, with auctioning and a central authority

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

Aims to combine development and climate, equity and efficiency

Economic efficiency: costs of abatment are cheaper in developing countries

Functioning: Alternative to domestic reductions Allow Annex I countries to invest in projects that reduce

emissions in developing countries New carbon credits: Certified Emission Reductions

(CERs)

Geographical distribution of CDMs

Criticism

Reality of avoided emissions Principle of additionality Incentive to misrepresent reality Overpricing and overestimation

Unlimited credits A country could completely externalise its efforts Transfer of emissions?

Development objectives ? Almost no CDM projects in Africa

Joint implementation

Similar mechanism as CDMs, but in Annex I countries (i.e. In Eastern Europe and Russia)

Provides Emission Reduction Units (ERUs), where 1 ERU = 1 ton of CO2

No new credits Long and fastidious process

Some final words

Kyoto is an agreement between industrialised countries, where developing countries are mostly oberservers:

No limits on emissions Do not benefit from flexible mechanisms Treaty focused on mitigation, not adaptation

Role of civil society in international cooperation