Climate negotiations post-Copenhagen Can the UNFCCC deliver? Mark Lutes Global Climate Initiative, WWF International Contact:

Overview What needs to be done – the science What happened in Copenhagen Current status Outlook for Cancun Conclusions

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) Objective: “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” What is “dangerous”? Stabilization at what level?

Broad agreement that global average temperature must stay below 2 ºC warming from pre-industrial level; EU, MEF, even Canada !? CAN (Climate Action Network): Temp increase should stay as far as possible below 2oC, and ASAP return to below 1.5 degrees; AOSIS, many NGOs – below 1.5 degrees NOTE: Temperature has already increased 0.6 o C over the last century, and the GHGs already in the atmosphere mean another 0.7 o C rise. So if all emissions stopped today, temperature would increase 1.3 o C What is “Dangerous” Climate Change?

Den Elzen & Meinshausen, 2005

Emission pathways to 2oC target

Emissions Pathways for peaking at less than 500ppm CO 2 eq concentrations then returning soon to 400 KyotoPlus - Papers “<2°C Trajectories – a Brief Background Note” Malte Meinshausen

Process leading to Copenhagen 2-track negotiating process: Kyoto Protocol Track – reduction targets for 2nd commitment period ( or beyond) for industrialized countries with targets under KP “Bali Action Plan” Track under Climate Convention (AWG-LCA) - Commitments for US and developing country actions; 2 years of negotiations under Bali Action Plan, 4 years under Kyoto Track – adequate time to reach agreement Low ambition for targets (aggregate 10-17% below 1990) in Kyoto track, negotiations stalled for a year; weak finance and tech support on table Many interlinked issues under Convention Track: Comparability of US commitments with other developed countries under KP, and differentiation between US and developed countries Role of carbon markets and links to targets in KP Arrangements for reporting and reviewing developing country actions How commitments and actions will be documented or “internationalized” Legal form of outcome – New protocol or only CoP decisions

What happened in Copenhagen? Huge public mobilization More than 100 “Leaders” Proliferation of negotiating texts Near collapse of negotiations – due to immensely complex set of issues, Process mismanagement, lack of ambition Negotiating texts under AWG-LCA and AWG-KP Copenhagen Accord Finance – fast-start ($10b/year) and long-term ($100b/year by 2020) “international consultations and analysis” “below” 2 degrees; review of adequacy in 2015, incl. 1.5 degrees Mitigation actions/commitments – deadline by Jan 31

Where do Cph commitments leave us?

Current situation in negotiations No improvement in ambition level – countries have submitted targets and actions under Cph accord and aren’t moving from them Domestic plans stalled in many countries – Aust., Canada, US, EU (20->30%) No resolution of “legal form” issue – future of KP very much in doubt – Russia, Canada, Japan opposed, US out; Binding treaty or CoP decisions or Copenhagen Accord; Would binding treaty involve 1, 2, or 3 protocols? Uncertain mandate for Cancun, South Africa in 2011 and beyond; Rio+ 20 and 2015 as potential fallback dates

Outlook for Cancun No Fair, Ambitious and Binding deal in Cancun Expectations are perhaps too low Need to build trust and confidence in process Potential for “Cancun Package” consisting of: Finance – new fund, and financial governance system, and work on sources (FTTs, bunker fuels, etc.) Adaptation framework, insurance mechanism and “loss and damage”. Deforestation – global goal, safeguards, drivers Technology – Tech action plans, IPRs, institutions Mitigation –, loopholes, ZCAPS, LCAPS and mandate for negotiations on new targets and actions by South Africa Agreement on Legal form of final agreement oo

Conclusions “FAB” global agreement through international negotiations remains essential; Progress will be slow and end date uncertain; Much needs to be done at local and national levels to lay the groundwork; International negotiating process will not be the driver for increased ambition; Increased ambition and urgency must come from the bottom up – driven by awareness of science and impacts, as well as confidence in solutions

END

Scenarios for outcome from Copenhagen Ambitious, comprehensive and binding legal agreement in Copenhagen that puts world on path to staying below 2 degrees – WWF’s public ask “Foundations” outcome, which is not as ambitious as we would like, but builds the key elements of a global regime so that action and targets can be quickly ramped up later Delay scenario, where legal text resolutions of key issues are delayed until next year or even later, when prospects may not be better than currently “Greenwash” scenario, where an agreement is announced that lacks ambition or foundations for future action; Collapse, where key groups (e.g., G77 or Africa group) walk out in protest at lack of progress, and no agreement is reached.

Extra slide: 10 steps to a successful outcome 1.Governments at Copenhagen need to create a legally binding framework with an amended Kyoto Protocol and a new Copenhagen Protocol, which secures the survival of countries, cultures and ecosystems and clears the way to the low carbon economy. 2.Global emissions peak before 2017 keeping overall warming well below the 2°C danger threshold, going down to below 1.5°C as soon as possible. 3.Industrialized countries commit to reduce their emissions by 40% by 2020, compared to 1990 levels. 4.Developing countries agree to undertake significant action making emissions at least 30% lower than Business-As-Usual by Zero net greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and degradation by 2020, taking into account indigenous peoples’ and local communities' rights. 6.A framework for immediate adaptation action is set in place, especially for vulnerable countries and ecosystems, including the provision of insurance and compensation. 7.Public finance in the order of US$160 billion per year is provided to developing countries for adaptation and mitigation through innovative sources of finance. 8.Mechanisms are set up to strengthen technology transfer and technology cooperation on research, development and dissemination of low-carbon and climate-resilient technologies. 9.A new institutional set-up under the UNFCCC allows for coordination, implementation and funding allocation, in a transparent and democratic way, and incentivizes compliance. 10.Parties agree transparent and comparable standards for carbon markets, forests and land use, mitigation efforts and inventories, and ways to limit international aviation and shipping emissions.