Overview and History of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

Overview and History of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Dan Bodansky Arizona State University 12 th UEF-UNEP Course on Multilateral Environmental Agreements November 2, 2015

Theorizing the Greenhouse Effect John Tyndall (1820-1893) Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) 11/2/15 2

Early Twentieth Century Guy Callendar (1898-1964) 1938 paper: Calculated 2 C climate sensitivity 11/2/15 3

Development of scientific concern: 1957-1990 Revelle/Seuss article, 1957 Human beings are now carrying on a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past. Within a few centuries, we are returning to the atmosphere and oceans the concentrated organic carbon stored in sedimentary rocks over hundreds of millions of years. 11/2/15 4

Keeling Curve Charles Keeling (1928-2005) 11/2/15 5

General circulation models Syukuro Manabe (1931- ) 11/2/15 6

Development of scientific concern: 1960s and 70s 1963 Conservation Foundation report: It is estimated that a doubling of the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere would produce a temperature rise of 3.8 degrees C. 1979 NAS report: There is no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible 11/2/15 7

Development of political interest 1980s Role of scientific knowledge brokers 1985 Villach meeting 1988 Villach and Bellagio meetings Role of environmental politics 1987 Brundtland Commission report Discovery of ozone hole Role of sudden shocks 1988 heat wave in North America 11/2/15 8

1988 11/2/15 12

International Nature of Climate Change Problem Climate change is a global problem In long term, need an international response No individual country can solve the problem Acting alone competitiveness issues 11/2/15 13

Development of the UN Climate Regime: A Play in Four Acts Prologue 1988-1991 Act I 1991-1994 Act II 1995-2005 Act III 2005-2012 Act IV 2012-2015 1988 1992 1997 2009 2012 2015 2020 Framework Convention (UNFCCC) Kyoto Protocol Copenhagen Durban Platform Paris General system of governance Binding emissions target Bottom-up Pledge 11/2/15 14

Iterative cycles Agenda-setting Negotiation Implementation 11/2/15 15

Development of the UN Climate Regime: Prologue Act I 1991-1994 1992 Act II 1995-2005 Prologue: Pre- Negotiations 1997 Act III 2005-2012 2009 Act IV 2012-2015 2012 2015 2020 ` 1988 1989 1990 Framework Convention (UNFCCC) UNGA: CC the common concern of humankind General system of governance IPCC created Toronto Conference: 20% reduction by 2005 Kyoto Protocol Noordwijk Conference: 1 st intergovernmental Binding emissions target conference Copenhagen Durban Platform IPCC First Assessment Report Bottom-up Pledge SWCC UNGA created INC Paris 17

Development of the UN Climate Regime: Act I Act I 1991-1994 Act II 1995-2005 Act II 2005-2012 Act IV 2012-2015 1992 1997 2009 2012 2015 2020 Framework Convention (UNFCCC) Kyoto Protocol Copenhagen Durban Platform Paris General system of governance Binding emissions target Bottom-up Pledge 11/2/15 18

Development of the UN Climate Regime: Act I Act I 1991-1994 1992 Act 1: UNFCCC Act II 1995-2005 1997 Act III 2005-2012 2009 Act IV 2012-2015 2012 2015 2020 ` 1991 1992 1991 1994 Framework Convention (UNFCCC) General system of governance INC 1: Chantilly INC 2-4: Geneva and Nairobi Kyoto Protocol Binding emissions target INC-5: UNFCCC adopted UNCED/Ea rth Summit Copenhagen Durban Platform Prompt start; INC continues to meet to Bottom-up Pledge elaborate rules Entry into force Paris Warsaw 11/2/15 19

Act 1 UNFCCC Establishes basic system of governance Basic objective and principles General obligations Institutional arrangements 195 parties 11/2/15 20

UNFCCC: Objective and principles Objective Stabilization of GHG concentrations to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system Principles Equity Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) Industrialized countries must take the lead Precautionary principle Cost-effectiveness 11/2/15 21

UNFCCC: Institutions Conference of the Parties (COP) Meets yearly Secretariat Financial Mechanism = Global Envt. Facility (GEF) Science Advisory Body (SBSTA) Implementation Body (SBI) 11/2/15 22

UNFCCC: Obligations All countries commit to Prepare and submit GHG inventories, national communications Formulate, implement and regularly update national programmes containing measures to mitigate climate change Annex I countries commit to Enhanced reporting Annex II countries commit to Financial, technological assistance to developing countries 11/2/15 23

But no binding emission targets Instead, Annex I countries agreed to non-binding aim to return emissions to 1990 levels by 2000 11/2/15 24

Framework Convention/Protocol Approach Allows states to proceed incrementally Framework convention establishes general system of governance Specific obligations developed in protocols Function of approach Raise concern Enhance the contractual environment Build capacity 11/2/15 25

Development of the UN Climate Regime Act I 1991-1994 1992 Act II 1995-2005 Act II: Kyoto Protocol 1997 Act III 2005-2012 2009 Act IV 2012-2015 2012 2015 2020 1995 Framework Convention (UNFCCC) Berlin Mandate General system of governance 1997 Kyoto Protocol Kyoto Binding adopted emissions target 2001 Marrakesh Accords Copenhagen Durban Platform Bottom-up Pledge 2005 Entry into force of Kyoto Protocol Paris 11/2/15 26

Act 2: 4 Key Features of Kyoto Top-down regulatory approach Legally-binding Sharp differentiation: developed and developing countries Market-based architecture 11/2/15 27

Kyoto Scorecard EU got strong, legally-binding emission targets US got flexible architecture Emissions trading Credit for emission reductions in developing countries Credit for carbon sinks Developing countries got total differentiation 11/2/15 28

Key features of Kyoto Top-down regulatory approach Internationallynegotiated and - agreed emissions targets National policies and measures Absolute national emissions targets Defined relative to 1990 baseline Comprehensive Economy-wide Both sources and sinks 6 gases 11/2/15 29

Key features of Kyoto: Legally-binding Geneva Declaration (COP-2) : targets would be legally binding Detailed rules, rigorous accounting, and a compliance mechanism for countries with targets 11/2/15 30

Compliance equation Initial assigned amount (target) ± AAUs from trading ± ERUs from JI + CERs from CDM + RMUs from sinks + AAUs banked from previous period - AAUs banked to next period 11/2/15 31

Compliance Committee 11/2/15 32

Key features of Kyoto: Firewall between developed and developing countries UNFCCC: Principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities Kyoto: Common: general commitments on mitigation, adaptation and reporting applicable to all countries Differentiated: additional commitments for developed countries on financial assistance, reporting Berlin Mandate: no new commitments for developing countries > firewall between developed and developing countries New commitments 11/2/15 33

Flexibility in Kyoto What flexibility Targets apply to CO 2 -equivalent emissions of basket of six GHGs Targets apply to all sectors, and include both sources and sinks Countries have choice of policies and measures When flexibility Targets apply to five-year commitment period (2008-2012) Where flexibility Parties can use market mechanisms to achieve targets through emission reductions in other parties ET, JI, CDM 11/2/15 34

Post-Kyoto Developments 1998-2001 Negotiation of Kyoto rulebook adopted in 2001 in Marrakesh Accords 2001: Rejection of Kyoto by Bush Administration 2005 Entry into force despite US rejection as a result of Russian ratification 11/2/15 35

Development of the UN Climate Regime Act I 1991-1994 1992 Act II 1995-2005 Act III 1997 Act III 2005-2012 2009 Act IV 2012-2015 2012 2015 2020 Framework Convention (UNFCCC) 2007 Kyoto Protocol 2009 2011 Copenhagen 2010 Durban Platform Paris 2012 General system of governance Bali Binding Action emissions Plan target Copenhagen Bottom-up Cancun Accord Agreements Pledge Doha 11/2/15 36

Post-2012 Negotiations: A broader, more difficult negotiation 1992 1997 2001 2005 2007 2009 Framework Convention (UNFCCC) Kyoto Protocol Marrakech Conference Kyoto entry into force Bali Plan of Action Copenhagen Act Two Focus on negotiating top-down emissions targets Primary axis EU-US 11/2/15 37

Changing negotiating dynamic: Developed-Developing 1992 1997 2001 2005 2007 2009 Framework Convention (UNFCCC) Kyoto Protocol Marrakech Conference Kyoto entry into force Bali Plan of Action Copenhagen Act Three Primary axis developed-developing: focus on global emissions 11/2/15 38

Carbon Emissions per year (C tons x 1,000,000) Fossil Fuel CO 2 Emissions: Top Emitters 2500 2500000 2000 2000000 1500 1500000 1000 1000000 500 500000 0 India Russian Fed. Time (y) China USA Japan 2010 Growth Rates 1990 2000 2010 Global Carbon Project 2011; Peters et al. 2011, Nature CC; Data: Boden, Marland, Andres-CDIAC 2011 10.4% 4.1% 9.4% 5.8% 6.8% 11/2/15 39

Growth in emissions, 1970-2010 11/2/15 Source: UNEP Emissions Gap Report (2013) 40

Post-2012 Negotiations Kyoto track: 2005: Establishment of Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments under the Kyoto Protocol UNFCCC track 2007 Bali Action Plan: establishment of Ad Hoc Working Group on Long- Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) 11/2/15 41

Bali Action Plan, 2007 Recognized that deep cuts in global emissions will be required Launched comprehensive process with four pillars: Mitigation Adaptation Finance Technology 11/2/15 42

The Copenhagen Conference, 2009 Tentative end date of Bali Action Plan was supposed to be the Copenhagen Conference 11/2/15 43

Why Was Copenhagen Seen as So Important? Pathways to 2 11/2/15 44

Copenhagen Accord Agreed by leaders of 25 countries, including all of major economies Goal of limiting average warming to 2 C Bottom-up process for recording mitigation pledges by both developed and developing countries Significant new financial assistance MRV Developed countries: International assessment and review (IAR) Developing countries: International consultation and analysis (ICA) 11/2/15 45

Copenhagen/Cancun: Top-down vs. bottom up KYOTO Top-down regulatory approach Internationallydefined emissions targets National policies and measures POST-2012 Bottom-up International policy National policies and measures 11/2/15 46

Copenhagen/Cancun: Legal Form KYOTO Top-down regulatory approach Legally-binding Firewall between developed and developing countries POST-2012 Bottom-up Softer law / political decisions Greater symmetry, parallelism 11/2/15 47

Copenhagen/Cancun: Differentiation KYOTO POST-2012 Top-down regulatory approach Legally-binding Firewall between developed and developing countries Greater symmetry, parallelism 11/2/15 48

Copenhagen Accord: Mitigation pledges Developed countries Economy-wide emissions targets for 2020 listed in Appendix Developing countries National mitigation actions listed in Appendix Registry of actions for which support sought 11/2/15 49

Copenhagen Accord: Finance Fast start financing for 2010-2012 Collective commitment of $30 billion Goal of $100 billion/year by 2020 Mix of public and private funds New Green Climate Fund High Level Panel to study potential sources of revenue 11/2/15 50

Usual pattern of climate change conferences First two weeks Last day (or night!) Yada, yada, yada Formal meetings Small friends of the chair group meets in private to hammer out compromise 11/2/15 51

but not in Copenhagen ( Nopenhagen ) But, in Copenhagen, small group able to block adoption of Copenhagen Accord by COP Sudan, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Tuvalu Argued that Copenhagen Accord lacked transparency, illegitimate, and represented a coup d etat against the UN Instead, COP merely took note of Copenhagen Accord 11/2/15 52

Cancun, 2010 Cancun agreements operationalized and elaborated the Copenhagen Accord Anchored Copenhagen pledges in UNFCCC process Provided for international transparency process 11/2/15 53

Why did Cancun succeed? Countries had a year to digest Copenhagen Accord, rather than 15 minutes Realization that, if Cancun failed, UNFCCC process might be discredited Skillful chairing by Mexico 11/2/15 54

Weaknesses of Copenhagen/Cancun approach? Emissions gap Only through 2020: no ongoing process Not legally binding 11/2/15 55

Copenhagen emissions gap Source: UNEP Emissions Gap Report (2010) 11/2/15 56

Development of the UN Climate Regime Act IV Act I 1991-1994 Act II 1995-2005 Act III 2005-2012 Act IV 2012-2015 1992 1997 2009 2012 2015 2020 2011 Framework Convention (UNFCCC) 2013 Kyoto Protocol 2014 2015 Copenhagen Durban Platform Paris Durban Platform General system of governance Warsaw Binding emissions target Lima Paris Agreement Bottom-up Pledge 11/2/15 57

Durban conference Expectations low EU: Unwilling to accept extension of Kyoto Protocol unless other major economies agreed to negotiate a new legal instrument US: Unwilling to negotiate new legal instrument unless it embraced China and India China, India, Brazil and South Africa (BASIC): Unwilling to agree to negotiate new legal instrument Unwilling to allow progress on Copenhagen/Cancun process unless Kyoto continued 11/2/15 58

Negotiations went to 11 th hour and beyond 11/2/15 59

But a significant outcome in the end breathed new life into the process 11/2/15 60

Durban s Three-Legged Stool Durban Platform negotiations Kyoto Protocol 2 nd commitment period Copenhagen / Cancun loose ends 11/2/15 61

Leg 1: Durban Platform Workstream 1: Post-2020 negotiations End date: 2015 (Paris) Workstream 2: Pre-2020 ambition 11/2/15 62

Leg 2: Kyoto Protocol 2 nd CP 8 years long (2012-2020) Formally adopted at COP- 18 in Doha Limited participation Covers about 14% of global emissions 11/2/15 63

Leg 3: Copenhagen/Cancun Loose Ends Green Climate Fund Governing Instrument adopted Transparency system Expert analysis of reports Political consultations / dialogue Technology Mechanism, REDD launched 11/2/15 64

Climate regime going forward 2008 2012 2013 2015 2018 2020 Kyoto Protocol 1st CP 2nd CP Copenhagen / Cancun Copenhagen/Cancun Pledges Ambition? Durban Platform Workstream 1 Negotiations Paris COP Paris Agreement 11/2/15 65

Assessing the UN climate change regime Problem-solving effectiveness Is it enough to solve the problem? Behavioral effectiveness Is it likely to reduce emissions? Political effectiveness Was it the most that could be achieved? 11/2/15 66

Copenhagen emissions gap Source: UNEP Emissions Gap Report (2010) 11/2/15 67

Kyoto Protocol UNFCCCC Copenhagen 11/2/15 68

Emissions gap Source: UNEP, The Emissions Gap Report (2010) 11/2/15 69

Nevertheless, also some positives MRV infrastructure: inventories, reports, IAR/ICA Climate finance; Green Climate Fund Better understanding of problem A stronger foundation on which to build 11/2/15 70

Why are the international negotiations so difficult? 11/2/15 71

Climate change a super wicked problem Potentially very costly too respond: reducing emissions affects virtually every aspect of domestic policy Harms from CC are long-term Significant uncertainties Costs and benefits vary widely Some countries may benefit from CC Some industries threatened by mitigation actions 11/2/15 72

A dysfunctional negotiating process? 11/2/15 73