Moving into Copenhagen: Global and Chinese Trends Jennifer Morgan Director, Climate and Energy Program November 2009
Global Deal: Conceptual Framework Building Global Political Conditions Bilateral Negotiations Managing Policy Mines Copenhagen Agreement Rule making Final Deal Ratification UNFCCC Text Negotiations Building National Political Conditions E3G Third Generation Environmentalism
Core Outcome Benchmarks Added Value High Trust Flexibility to move to cuts consistent with 1.5C Transformational in OECD Foundation for future reductions in emerging economies
Key Issues for a Deal SHARED VISION Mitigation Adaptation Developed country Commitments MRV Forests Technology Finance Capacity building Developing Country Actions
Form of Copenhagen Agreement There are two scenarios for a Copenhagen Outcome: Binding Copenhagen Decision(s): detailed agreement on a deal with numbers on country commitments, financing and a broad framework and principles for implementation institutions and mechanisms. Legal form decided in Copenhagen or later Copenhagen Political Declaration: general declaration with no numbers on country commitments or finance (except perhaps on adaptation and forestry). Negotiation timetable to finalise the deal within 6 months at Copenhagen bis and reach a binding agreement.
Mapping the key players Climate leaders e.g. Norway More Supportive 2 o C AOSIS Rest of Africa Progressive EU S.Africa Other EU Mexico S.Korea Brazil Japan Progressive G77 Indonesia China US e.g. Bangladesh Less powerful Australia India More powerful Core/deal-makers Other G77 e.g. Egypt/Pakistan Canada Saudi/ Rogues/deal-breakers OPEC Russia Important swing states Climate champions Less supportive 2 o C E3G - Third Generation Environmentalism
Four Scenarios A. Breakthrough: significant political movement - considerable added value on ambition - firm foundation of institutions for 2C regime. B. Foundation: unfavourable domestic politics little added value on ambitions - clever diplomacy and growing trust - credible foundation for strengthening commitments in the next five years. C. Greenwash: the rush to deliver political headlines little added value in pledge and review agreement - progress on forests and developing countries presented as a huge success - no basis for future ambition. D. Collapse: misaligned expectations and no real engagement from leaders - push for last night agreement fails to bridge differences - decisions either deferred to a COPbis or talks breakdown.
Chinese Formal Position on Principles UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol are the base for negotiations Kyoto is a long-living treaty. Common but differentiated responsibilities Support for mitigation, adaptation, technology and finance are on the same footing as actions
Chinese Formal Objectives All developed countries take on deeper targets along the lines of Kyoto-type targets of 40% below 1990 by 2020 Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) are not targets but voluntarily initiated policies and measures, not for offsets China has stated its intent to adopt a carbon intensity target of a notable margin
Emissions Reduction Path for Achieving 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 Emissions Trajectory, Data Including LULUCF 10% below 1990 levels 18000000 16000000 10% below 1990 levels 14000000 24% below 1990 levels LOW PLEDGE HIGH PLEDGE 25% BELOW 1990 40% BELOW 1990 Gg CO2 equivalent 12000000 10000000 8000000 6000000 40% below 1990 levels 25% below 1990 levels 4000000 2000000 40% below 1990 levels 80% below 1990 levels 0 1990 2020 2050 Year
Developing country enhanced actions
Chinese Formal Objectives Not willing to put NAMAs in an international registry to be internationally reviewed New institutions and funds for Adaptation, Technology and Capacity Building 0.5 to 1.0% of GDP of developed countries should fill those funds Avoidance of unilateral trade measures
Low cost At present G77 & China is the only proposal to cover all stages on the innovation chain developed country leadership has been extremely weak Financed by assessed contributions For patented technology Business Basic R&D Applie d R&D Government Policy Interventions Demo n- strati on Product/ Technology Push Market Pull Commerc ial -isation Diffusi on Public investment used to leverage private capital Consumers MCTF primarily aimed at tech Push (research) Investments Investors Venture capital incentive to finance RD&D
GOAL Avoid dangerous interference with climate system Science FUNCTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT Ambition Accountability Implementation MRV ACTIONS LINKING SUPPORT Evaluate actions (developed, developing countries) Catalyze national coordination and policy planning Enhance information about range of possible mitigation actions Share lessons about effective mitigation Assess effectiveness of global agreement and progress toward global goal Track and account for support obligations Track mitigation spending and outcomes Enhance governance and accountability Capacity building at the national level
MRV/MAE in China A robust domestic MAE system is consistent with domestic interest and needs MAE system should be designed to underpin existing and future policy options but there are commonalities among different options Capacity building are needed in terms of legislation, infrastructure, quality control, dynamic assessment and information disclosure
Conclusions Copenhagen a key moment but still unclear how ambitious the agreement will be All major economies are putting serious proposals on the table China is prepared to show its readiness to be a globally responsible actor