1. E. Crispin d’Auvergne Sustainable Development & Environment Division, Ministry of Sustainable Development, Energy, Science & Technology Saint Lucia 15 th June 2015 CLIMATE CHANGE: THE ROAD TO PARIS

2. 1886: (Svante) Arrhenius hypothesis – Co 2 could increase Earth’s average temperature 1896: Arrhenius publication predicting global warming in case of increasing atmospheric Co 2 content 1930: Guy Stewart Callendar : Warming in the US due to increased Co 2 concentrations in the atmosphere 1938: Callendar first to demonstrate that Earth’s land surface warming. Suggested that the production of Co 2 by the combustion of fossil fuels was responsible for much of this modern change in climate

3. 1950: More funding for climate research 1960: First simple mathematical climate models 1970s: The rise of environmentalism 1979: 1 st World Climate Conference identifies climate change as an urgent world problem and World Climate Programme established 1988; Toronto Conference recommends the development of a comprehensive global framework convention to protect the atmosphere 1988: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established by UNGA Resolution 43/53 1990: First assessment Report by the IPCC 1990: Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) for Framework Convention on Climate Change established by UN Resolution 45/212 1992 : Climate Change Convention adopted at Rio Earth Summit

4. Objective: “to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. “Such a level should be achieved 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”

5. 1992: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) opened for signing 1993: Saint Lucia ratifies UNFCCC 1994: Convention entry into Force on 21 st March 1995: 1 st Conference of Parties (COP), Bonn 1997: 3 rd COP in Kyoto yields Kyoto Protocol 2005: Kyoto Protocol to Convention EIF 2014: 20 th COP, Lima 2015: 21 st COP, Paris

6.  SIDS contribute minimally to global warming* but are disproportionately affected by climate change;  The IPCC, the UNFCCC and others have concluded that SIDS are among the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change*  The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) coalesced around the INC negotiations  AOSIS actively negotiates in the Convention process and has even been called the “conscience” of the Convention

7. In view of a failed attempt in Copenhagen (CoP15, 2009), a fading (and failing) Kyoto Protocol:  Call for a new global agreement on climate change agreement  Mandate given at 17 th Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC (COP-17, Durban 2011). Agreement to: “launch a process to develop (a) a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force (b) under the Convention (c) applicable to all Parties”

8. COP-18 (Doha) 2012: Doha Amendment: 2 nd Commitment Period for the Kyoto Protocol COP-19 (Warsaw): Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) on Loss & Damage Agreement on intended Nationally Determined Contributions (iNDCs COP-20 (Lima): Lima Call for Climate Action; Membership of L& D Committee; Annex to serve as basis for negotiations on new agreement; Guidelines for iNDCs COP-17 (Durban) 2011: Mandate for a new Climate Agreement by 2015

9. GROUPCountriesSub-Groups Annex1Developed Countries Non-Annex 1Mostly Developing Countries and a few EITs G77 & ChinaMost developing countries (133 members) LMDCs; Arab Group, BASIC, AILAC, African Group (Most SIDS and LDCs), China LDCs50 countriesMost part of G77. Some are SIDS AOSIS43 Small Island and low- lying coastal states Pacific; Caribbean; AIMS; Singapore Environmental Integrity Group Mexico, Liechtenstein, Monaco, the Republic of Korea, Switzerland Umbrella GroupAustralia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and the US Parties often speak separately European Union28 member states of the EU, as one entity Individual EU States

10.  Legal Form  Scope  Applicability  Review

11.  EU: Top‐down, legally binding agreement with commitments from INDCs to be legally binding; preference for a protocol; supports compliance and review procedures  US: Hybrid agreement that combines legally binding and voluntary elements, with use of ‘schedules’; has expressed preference for a ‘hub and spokes’ approach – i.e. a ‘hub’ agreement  CARICOM/AOSIS:  Legally binding agreement applicable to all.  Ideally, a new Protocol.  Balanced- critical elements equitably represented  Should allow countries to meet meaningful emissions commitments

12. Emissions reductions pledges still far from adequate to pull the planet out of danger. 1.5°? 2°?

13.  How Much?  For What?  Through What Modalities

14. Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR) Vulnerability Equity

15.  COP-19: invited Parties to commence or further preparations for “intended nationally determined contributions” towards the achievement of the 2015 Agreement  By Decision 1/CP.19, all Parties agreed to put forward their intended contributions (iNDCs) well in advance of the Paris conference and by the first quarter of 2015, if in a position to do so, or by October 01  Collectively, iNDCs supposed to be adequate to restrict global warming to below 2°C or 1.5°C above pre industrial levels.  Issues:  Content  Legal status

16. Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) on L&D established at COP19 in Warsaw in 2013 Many developed countries concerned that Loss & Damage implies liability and “unlimited and undefined compensation”

17. UN Summit to adopt post ‐ 2015 Dev’pment Framework 25 ‐ 27 Sep “Dangerous Mergers” (CC/DRR) Bilateral Agreements (“Minilateralism”) New negotiating blocs (LMDCs) 3 rd Int’l Conf on Financing for Dev’pment 13 ‐ 16 July

18.  Still wide differences on several key issues  Global economy still feeble  Weak mitigation ambition  Equity/CBDR a major consideration  Finance key underlying consideration  Other processes likely to affect Paris outcome

19. Thank you!