Transcript A review of Agreements and Outstanding Issues on
A review of Agreements and Outstanding Issues on Mitigation, AGN Lead coordinators Workshop Addis Ababa, August 13
th
2010 Seyni NAFO
Outline
• • • • •
African Common Position on Mitigation Cancun Agreements Durban Package Bonn (SBI 36 & SBSTA 36) Challenges Forward
Africa Common Position on Mitigation Common Platform and AMCEN Key messages
• • General Consideration – A “Firewall between and within Tracks” • KP & BAP, and between mitigation commitments of Annex I parties that are legally binding in nature and appropriate voluntary mitigation actions by Non-Annex I parties.
Developed countries Mitigation – Level of ambition : at least 40% (2CP - 2013-2017), 95% by 2050 vs 1990; limiting carbon markets to 10% of commitments, conditionality of NMM to 2CP (ambitious targets) – Comparability of Efforts (targets, rules, compliance) • A Review panel on comparability is needed to operationalise comparability of efforts and rigorous, robust and transparent accounting for all Annex I parties, under both tracks.
• A Compliance Mechanism shall be established for the evaluation and verification of the fulfillment of developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention including their financial contributions to adaptation, mitigation, technology transfer and capacity building to developing country Parties, to identify insufficiencies between the enabling means provided and needed and address non-compliance with commitments.
– MRV of Support : Transparency, scale, access, grants, etc.
• • • • •
African Common Position on Mitigation
Developing Countries Mitigation:
General consideration
– Nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) of Non Annex I Parties are voluntary measures and/or programs to mitigate climate change under Article 4.1 of the Convention that are enabled by finance, technology and capacity building in accordance with Articles 4.3 and 4.5, and based on their specific national priorities and circumstances and in the context of sustainable development.
– Support and action go together. The scale of finance, technology and capacity building support needed for mitigation in developing countries depends on the extent of action being undertaken art 4.7
Role of Registry for NAMAs & Support
– The modalities for matching of support and action are to be elaborated – submission of an indicative NAMA to the registry must trigger a request for support to Financial and Technology Mechanisms. Once matching of support has taken place, a message should be set back to the registry/mechanism, with the effect that the NAMA would become registered.
MRV of Mitigation actions
– ICA on BUR is to be non intrusive, not imply any review and compliance process.
– ICA should imply fewer burdens than IAR NA I NAMAs ationally appropriate mitigation actions will be reportable through national communications (if done with own resources) or in a separate registry for those with multi-lateral, measurable, reportable and verifiable support. The application of “verifiable” to unilateral mitigation actions by developing countries must be differentiated from those that are supported internationally: – For actions with own resources, verification is by national entities working with international guidelines; and – For multilaterally supported actions, verification is through the UNFCC
Cancun Agreements
•
On developed counties
– Para 37: “urges… to increase ambition within level consistent with ARP4” – Para 38-39: requests (1) Workshops to clarify assumptions and (2) TP on facilitating and understanding assumptions behind targets and comparison of level of efforts – Para 40-41: Process to enhance reporting (BR, supplementary infos on achieving QERTs, CRF for finance) – Para 44: International Assessment and Review (IAR) – Para 46 (a,b,c,d,): Work programme to enhance reporting Nat. com and BR
Cancun Agreements
•
On developing countries
– Para 48: “ reaffirms NAMAs within SD context, supported and with the aim to deviate from BAU emissions in 2020” – Para 51-52: (1) Workshop on understanding diversity and support needs – (2)call on developed countries to provide enhanced support – Para 53: Setting up of the Registry – Para 60: Enhance reporting through : Nat Coms (4Y) and BUR) – Para 61: International Consultation and Analysis (ICA) on BUR – Para 64: Work programme on modalities and guidelines (5 items)
• •
Durban LCA Outcome and DPEA
Operationalization of the Cancun MRV Regime – Para 46 (developed countries’ Work Programme) • Cancun Para 36-38 (Ambition paras) – Continue clarification pledges through Submissions, workshops, TP; – Para 9: Acknowledge value of ex-ante info and the need to elaborate rigorous, robust transparent approaches… through Workshops and submissions; •
BR
– – Progress on achieving QERTS , and MRV of support; No CRF Tables yet •
IAR
– Promoting comparability of efforts along all developed countriesFNFS – Sequencing finalized (technical review followed by a multilateral assessment) – Para 64 (developing countries’ Work Programme) •
Cancun Para 48-51 (Diversity paras)
– – Understanding diversity General Guidelines for Domestic MRV • • • Biennial Update Reports ICA Registry – – Pilot COP18 Modalities with financial mechanisms after operationalization SC + GCF Durban Platform (art2-5; art7) – Post-2020 EU - A new Process: To a legally binding outcome applicable to all, – Pre-2020 AOSIS - Workplan on increasing mitigation ambition
SBI 36 & SBTA 36
• • SBI – – 5.a Prototype of Registry 5.b Composition, modalities and procedures of the team of technical experts under ICA SBSTA – 10.a Work programme on CRF for BR for developed countries – 10.b Work programme on revision of guidelines for review of BR, nat coms, nat. inventory revies – 10.c General Guidelines for domestic MRV • LCA – – Bangkok Workshops (Understanding NAMAs assumptions, MRV of Support & Transparency of • Format : LTF Workshop – Presentation + Panelists + Q/A •
Panel 1: Underlying assumptions and methodologies, greenhouse gases, sectors and GWPs Panel 2: Support needs
Taking Outcome forward: what & where ???
Challenges Forward
• • •
How to ensure progress towards CP2 (2013-2017):
– Comparability of efforts(targets, rules, compliance) among AI: KP2, KP but not KP2 and non-KP ? – Transformation of pledges into carbon budgets? – Adoption of multi-laterally agreed rules of accounting for (1)assigned amounts, (2) mechanisms, (3)LUCLUF ?
ADP
– Pre-2020: Workplan on increasing ambition: • UNEP 2010 Gap (6-11 GtCo2)Report – Strict Rules to immediate negotiation issues (4Gt): surplus AAUs & avoid double counting – Changes to the energy system (decrease 11% primary NRG use and increase 28% primary NRG in Renew): EE Targets and Renewable Targets – Sector by sector changes (9-10Gt): electricity, industry, transport, agriculture, forestry, buildings, aviation & shipping, waste.
• Outside UNFCCC – (USA) Major Economies Forum (established in 2009, MEF, 17 major economies, 80% of global emissions) – (USA) Climate and Clean Air Coalition: (Feb 2012, 20 countries, short-lived climate pollutants, methane black carbon-HFC, 30% current GHG) – (NZD) Global Research Alliance on Agriculture GHG: (2009, 30 countries, 15% current GHG) – Post-2020: • Operationalization – of Art 4 commitments (4.1, 4.3, 4.7, etc…) • AI vs Non-Annex I: Substance (QERTS vs NAMAs) & Form (legal nature) • Compliance Architecture
FINANCE
– Post FSF $$$$????: Scaled-up and Simplified access to FINANCE ???
• End FSF, no pledges, roadmap, sources, carbon market in shambles, etc… • Where (sources), how much (scale), how when (access), etc.