Presentation on theme: "MD ZIAUL HAQUE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS) DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS 29 August, 2013."— Presentation transcript:
MD ZIAUL HAQUE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS) DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS 29 August, 2013
Kyoto Protocol (Phase I) The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 by the 3 rd Conference of the Parties (COP3), but entered into force only in The Protocol moves beyond the UNFCCC by establishing legally-binding emission reduction and limitation commitments for all Annex I Parties to the Convention that are also Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (Article 3). The first set of quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives ("QELROS") agreed for Annex I Parties are set out in Annex B to the Protocol and run for a 5-year period, from 2008 through This is called First Commitment Period.
Contd. Annex I Parties shall individually or jointly reduce their overall emissions of GHGs listed in Annex A (Six GHGs) in accordance with their assigned amount inscribed in Annex B by at least 5% below 1990 levels in the 1 st Commitment Period (Article 3.1). Each Annex I Party shall, by 2005, have made demonstrable progress in achieving its commitments under this protocol (Article 3.2). Commitments for subsequent periods for Annex I Parties shall be established in amendments to Annex B to this Protocol in accordance with the provisions of Article 21.7 (Article 3.9).
Contd. If the emissions of an Annex I Party in a commitment period are less than its assigned amount under this Article, this difference shall, on request of that Party, be added to the assigned amount for that party for subsequent commitment periods (Article 3.13). For the purpose of meeting its commitments under Article 3, any Annex I Party may transfer to, or acquire from, any other such Party emission reduction units resulting from projects aimed at reducing emissions by sources or enhancing removals by sinks of GHGs in any sector of the economy (Article 6).
Contd. Under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): a) Non-Annex I Parties will benefit from project activities resulting in Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), and b) Annex I Parties may use the CERs accruing from such project activities to contribute to compliance with part of their QELRC under Article 3 as determined by the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to this Protocol, CMP (Article 12). The CMP shall ensure that a share of the proceeds from certified project activities is used to cover administrative expenses as well as to assist developing country Parties to meet the costs of adaptation (Adaptation Fund) (Article 12).
Kyoto Protocol (Phase II) Under Article 3.9 of the Protocol, Parties agreed to begin negotiations on commitments for a second commitment period at least 7 years before the end of the first commitment period (i.e., in 2005). In December 2005, the Parties adopted decision 1/CMP.1, which established the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties (AWG-KP). By this decision, the Parties "Agree[d] that the group shall aim to complete its work and have its results adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) as early as possible and in time to ensure that there is no gap between the first and second commitment periods".
Contd. Since 2005, some Annex I Parties have expressed hesitation in taking a second set of commitments under the Kyoto Protocol in the absence of binding commitments by the United States and major developing country Parties. These Annex I Parties have expressed their preference for a single new agreement for the post-2012 period under the Convention. A few of these Parties have stated that they will not present second commitment period (CP2) QELROs.
Contd. Nevertheless, at CMP 7 in 2011 at Durban, as a result of strong pressure from developing countries, the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol confirmed by decision 1/CMP.7 that there would be a CP2 under the Kyoto Protocol. The Parties agreed that the "second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol shall begin on 1 January 2013 and end either on 31 December 2017 or 31 December 2020, to be decided by the AWG-KP at its seventeenth session". Finally, the amendments to the Kyoto Protocol for 2 nd commitment period pursuant to its Article 3.9 was adopted by CMP8 in 2012 at Doha. But following USA, Canada walked out from the KP, and Japan, Russia and New Zealand did not join KP-2
Major Amendments to the KP The second commitment period begins on 1 January 2013 and will end on 31 December 2020 subject to ratification by the Parties concerned. Amendments of Annex B to the Protocol by replacing the table in Annex B with new table where quantified emission limitation or reduction commitment s of each Annex I countries that are Parties to KP are inscribed in percentage of base year or period. One new GHG-Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) is included in Annex A. Amendments pursuant to Article 3.9 and other consequential amendments.
Contd. New Article 3.1 bis: Parties included in Annex I shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed their assigned amounts, calculated pursuant to their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments inscribed in the third column of the table contained in Annex B and in accordance with the provisions of this Article, with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 18 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2013 to 2020.
Contd. New Article 3.1 ter: A Party included in Annex B may propose an adjustment to decrease the percentage inscribed in the third column of Annex B of its quantified emission limitation and reduction commitment inscribed in the third column of the table contained in Annex B. A proposal for such an adjustment shall be communicated to the Parties by the secretariat at least three months before the meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol at which it is proposed for adoption. Article 3.8 bis: Any Party included in Annex I may use 1995 or 2000 as its base year for nitrogen trifluoride for the purposes of the calculation referred to in paragraph 7 bis above.
Major decisions adopted by CMP8 Para 6: Decides also that Parties that do not provisionally apply the amendment under paragraph 5, will implement their commitments and other responsibilities in relation to the second commitment period, in a manner consistent with their national legislation or domestic processes, as of 1 January 2013 and pending the entry into force of the amendment in accordance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Kyoto Protocol.
Contd. Para 7: Decides that each Party included in Annex I will revisit its quantified emission limitation and reduction commitment for the second commitment period at the latest by In order to increase the ambition of its commitment, such Party may decrease the percentage inscribed in the third column of Annex B of its quantified emission limitation and reduction commitment, in line with an aggregate reduction of greenhouse gas emissions not controlled by the Montreal Protocol by Parties included in Annex I of at least 25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.
Contd. Para 15: Decides, with respect to joint implementation under Article 6 and emissions trading under Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol, that: (a) As of 1 January 2013, only a Party with a commitment inscribed in the third column of Annex B as contained in annex I to this decision whose eligibility has been established in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3 of the annex to decision 11/CMP.1 in the first commitment period, shall be eligible to transfer and acquire CERs and AAUs, ERUs and RMUs valid for the second commitment period under Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3(b) of the annex to decision 11/CMP.1;
Contd. Para 21: Decides also that for the second commitment period, the Adaptation Fund shall be further augmented through a 2 per cent share of the proceeds levied on the first international transfers of AAUs and the issuance of ERUs for Article 6 projects immediately upon the conversion to ERUs of AAUs or RMUs previously held by Parties; Para 22: Reaffirms that in accordance with decision 17/CP.7, clean development mechanism project activities in least developed country Parties shall continue to be exempt from the share of proceeds to assist with the costs of adaptation;
Contd. Para 24: Decides also that where the emissions of a Party referred to in paragraph 23 above in a commitment period are less than its assigned amount under Article 3, the difference shall, on request of that Party, be carried over to the subsequent commitment period, as follows: (a) Any ERUs or CERs held in that Partys national registry that have not been retired for that commitment period or cancelled may be carried over to the subsequent commitment period, up to a maximum for each unit type of 2.5 per cent of the assigned amount calculated pursuant to Article 3, paragraphs 7, and 8;
2015 Legally Binding Agreement The COP17, by decision 1/CP.17, launched a process to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties through the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) established by the same decision. The COP17 also decided to launch a work plan on enhancing mitigation ambition to identify and explore options for a range of actions that can close the ambition gap, with a view to ensuring the highest possible mitigation efforts by all Parties (Pre-2020 mitigation ambition).
Contd. Decision 1/CP.17 states that the work of the ADP on the 2015 LBA shall include, inter alia, mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer, transparency of action and support, and capacity-building (Para 5). Decision 1/CP.17 further adds that the process shall raise the level of ambition and be informed by, inter alia, the IPCC AR5 and the Review (Para 6).
Contd. The COP17 further decided that the ADP should start its work as a matter of urgency in the first half of 2012 and should complete its work as early as possible but no later than 2015 in order for the COP to adopt this protocol, legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force at its twenty-first session (COP21) and for it to come into effect and be implemented from The COP18 also decided that the ADP will consider elements for a draft negotiating text no later than at its session to be held in conjunction with the COP20, with a view to making available a negotiating text before May 2015.
Contd. The agenda adopted by the ADP was to initiate the discussions under two work-streams: one on matters related to paragraphs 2 to 6 of decision 1/CP.17 (2015 Agreement) and one on matters related to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the same decision 1/CP.17 (Pre 2020 Mitigation Ambition).
Major points being discussed under ADP negotiations (Bangladeshs view ) It would be a rules-based Protocol under the Convention (Paris Protocol) Work in the ADP on the 2015 LBA needs to continue considering mitigation, adaptation, transparency and means of implementation in an integrated way in order to identify the specific functional elements that will go into the 2015 LBA and accompanying package The outcome of the ADP must be in line with this ultimate objective and this can only be achieved through a collective and equitable sharing of efforts and universal participation
The 2015 Agreement must take into account the specific circumstances of country Parties with reference to e.g. level of development, access to international markets, access to natural resources, climate vulnerability, etc. A special consideration must be given to the highly vulnerable countries Developed countries must take the lead, certainly on mitigation but also in respect of other issues, and developing countries should contribute to the fullest extent possible on the basis of CBDR and RC The level and extent of contributions can be determined nationally with the provisions of international oversight Parties may select the specific types of commitments appropriate to their national circumstances under a framework of international consultations, which imply a combination of both bottom-up and top-down steps
Contd. An enhanced MRV framework should be put in place under a rules- based system Taking on responsibilities under an equity-based spectrum of commitments may inform the new Agreement as a core consideration It is important to add values to the ADP process from the existing frameworks, mechanisms, institutions and processes under both the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol It is critically important that the post-2020 regime must address both mitigation and adaptation in a balanced manner
Contd. In order to capture the changing circumstances in a predictable manner, an effective and robust review mechanism has to be put in place under the new Legally Binding Agreement It should provide clear assurance on the provisions of means of implementation in terms of transparent actions in relation to financial, technological and capacity enhancement support MRV of support has to be dealt with under an effective review mechanism The goal of adaptation has to be realized under an accompanying implementation package
Pre-2020 Mitigation Ambition Action to close the pre 2020 mitigation gap in order to achieve below 2 degree global goal. Importance of building the appropriate implementation conditions to allow greater pre-2020 ambition. All countries must contribute to raising ambition with required support, but developed countries must take the lead. Low-hanging mitigation potential should be emphasized, as well as the importance of supplementary initiatives outside the UNFCCC without prejudice to the Convention process.
Contd. All developed countries must provide their fair share of climate finance for the specific mitigation actions initiated; that along with public finance there is a need to leverage more investments from the private sector. We should look into how work in UNFCCC bodies such as the GCF and the Technology Mechanism can link with international initiatives on mitigation. Ministerial engagement on pre-2020 ambition would be essential at COP 19 and at the upcoming summit called by the UN Secretary General.