EU Climate Policy Post- Copenhagen Artur Runge-Metzger Director Climate Change & Air European Commission

Outline  COP15  Copenhagen Accord  Way forward

COP15 - The Stats  No of registered participants up to 50,000  6 negotiating sessions, often in parallel  15 th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC  5 th meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol  10 th Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP 10)  8 th session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action  Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice  Subsidiary Body for Implementation  > 100 heads of state, most of EU and G20, including all BRIC

COP15 – Limits of the UNFCCC process  Complexity vs consensus  Under the LCA track it was not possible to really discuss developing country actions  US did not engage on anything resembling Kyoto, keeping all options open to accommodate internal legislation  These dynamics only changed when Heads of State arrived, but time too limited to come in line with EU expectations  ALBA countries pursue own agenda and blocked final consensus

The Copenhagen Accord  Negotiated by around 30 countries during 24 hours  Heads of state negotiate line- by-line  Developing country delegations either did not send their political level, such as Sudan and Saudi Arabia, or tried to avoid having their Heads of State negotiate like China and India

 Algeria  Australia  Bangladesh  Brazil  China  Colombia  Ethiopia  Sweden  European Commission  Germany  France  Grenada  India  Indonesia  Japan  Republic of Korea  Lesotho  Maldives  Mexico  Norway  Russian Federation  Saudi Arabia  South Africa  Spain  Sudan  UK  US The Copenhagen Accord Countries Covering all UN regional groups, LDCs and the alliance of small island states:

The Copenhagen Accord I  Recognises the 2  C objective but no timing for peaking nor 2050 ambition levels  Economy-wide emission reduction targets for developed countries and mitigation action by developing countries  Measurement, reporting, verification (MRV) for developed countries based on existing and new guidelines but no clear common accounting framework  MRV for developing countries:  Supported actions MRV-ed internationally and included in a registry  Unsupported actions MRV-ed domestically and included in national communications + inventory (2 yearly)

The Copenhagen Accord II  Commitment by developed countries to provide new and additional resources approaching USD 30 billion for the period  Committed goal to mobilise USD 100 billion dollars by 2020  Variety of sources, both public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.  Establishment of a Copenhagen Green Climate Fund  High Level Panel will be established to study the contribution of the potential sources of revenue  Weak language on (carbon) market

The Copenhagen Accord III  Register to record supported actions and the support itself  Mechanism for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and other uses (not specified);  Technology Mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer (not specified);  Establish a comprehensive adaptation programme including international support  A review to be completed by 2015, with a reference to exploring pathways to remain below 1.5° C temperature increase.

Appendix to the Accord – Developed countries  As of 5 February 94 parties have associated themselves with the accord or submitted actions in its appendix  EU (-20% to -30% vs 1990), Australia (-5% to -25% vs 2000) and Norway (- 30% to -40% vs 1990) have unconditional low end targets and conditional high end targets.  US (-17% vs 2005) conditiona on enactment domestic legislation  Canadian target is a retreat from their offer under the Kyoto Protocol. -17% vs 2005 instead of -20% vs 2006 (reversal of the ambition compared to 1990 from -3% to +3%)  Japanese -25% vs 1990 conditional on a fair global agreement  Russia’s (-15% to -25% vs 1990) target also refers to a conditionality linked to how it can use LULUCF

Appendix to the Accord – Developing countries  Basic countries have communicated their actions in the context of UNFCCC, not the Copenhagen Accord.  BASIC refers explicitly (S-Africa) or implicitly (Art 4.7, Art 12.4) to support, unclear extent of conditionality for individual actions.  Actions similar to what was known before COP15. Brazil being most detailed. China not only CO 2 intensity target but also Non Fossil fuel and LULUCF target.  Singapore (-16%) and South Korea (-30%) introduced a target but expressed to baseline, thus remains flexible concept  Marshall Islands have introduced target of -40% compared to a base year (2009) but conditional on support.

Way forward - Time line of UN process Established 2005, COP 11, Montreal 10 sessions, 15 meetings AWG KP No text agreed at COP 15 Established 2007, COP 13, Bali 8 sessions, 10 meetings AWG LCA No text agreed at COP 15 Copenhagen Accord Text agreed at COP 15 but not unanimous Text agreed Not Unanimous 1 session 1 meeting ?

Way forward – Negotiations plus Action Now  Accord should be key to reinvigorate the process under the AWGs in order to reach a legally binding agreement:  Copenhagen accord was not adopted by the COP, only noted (Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Cuba and to a lesser extent Tuvalu blocked)  Accord is not legally binding nor refers to a process towards it.  Accord refers several times to follow up COP decisions and draft AWG LCA and AWG KP texts forwarded to Mexico  BASIC seems to see it now as a mere political agreement  In parallel, the Accord requires swift implementation.  Majority of countries wants to act now on climate change.  Smart use of fast-start finance can build capacity and create confidence in ramping up action.

Way forward – Factors of success in 2010  EU preference for a single legally binding outcome: By Mexico?  Simple amending Annex B of Kyoto Protocol is not an option  Completely undermines environmental integrity of 2020 target (LULUCF, surplus AAUs)  No level playing field between EU and US and other countries  Positioning of the ALBA countries  If consensus under the COP continues to be problematic, the Accord might stimulate Parties in the near future to take action and collaborate  COP could facilitate implementation of the Accord under Art 7(2)(c)  Outcome US legislative debate  Other informal processes could remain important, e.g. G20, G8, Major Economies Forum

Way forward – What should the EU do?  Leadership starts at home  Implement EU energy and climate package  Link climate change to EU2020 strategy for sustainable growth, innovation and jobs, i.e. focus on transport, de-carbonisation of power sector, budget and CAP review, adaptation.  Develop a low carbon development strategy with a vision of reducing emissions by 80-95% by 2050 and set milestones 2020/2030.  Reaching out internationally  Implement the Copenhagen Accord: EU will have to act swift on fast start finance and be transparent on how it will deliver the EU pledge of € 2.4 billion yearly over the period  Develop international carbon market: design and test sectoral crediting Mechanism. Amended ETS gives us the tools to do so.  No alternative to the UN process: EU is ready to continue to negotiate

More information on EU climate policy: