item_a.pdf

2
1 Summary for Policy Makers Section 5.2 – Draft Submitted for Government Approval April 7, 2014 International cooperation on climate change has diversified over the past decade. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) remains a primary international forum for climate negotiations, and is seen by many as the most legitimate international climate policy venue due in part to its virtually universal membership [13.3.1, 13.4.1.4, 13.5]. However, other institutions organized at many different scales have risen in importance due to the inclusion of climate change issues in other policy arenas and growing awareness of the cobenefits that can arise from linking climate mitigation and other issues [13.3, 13.4, 13.5]. Existing and proposed international climate agreements and instruments vary in their focus and degree of centralization. International climate agreements and instruments span: multilateral agreements (such as the Kyoto Protocol targets and accounting rules), harmonized national policies, and decentralized but coordinated national policies (such as planned linkages of national and subnational emissions trading schemes). Also, regional and regionally coordinated policies exist and have been proposed. [Figure 13.2, 13.4, 13.13.2, 14.4] The Kyoto Protocol was the first binding step toward implementing the principles and goals provided by the UNFCCC, but it has had limited effects on global emissions because some countries did not ratify the Protocol, some Parties did not meet their commitments, and its commitments applied to only a portion of the global economy (medium evidence, low agreement). The Parties collectively surpassed their collective emission reduction target in the first commitment period, but the Protocol credited emissions reductions that would have occurred even in its absence. The Kyoto Protocol does not directly influence the emissions of nonAnnex I countries, which have grown rapidly over the past decade. [5.2, 13.13.1.1] The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which created a market for emissions offsets from developing countries, had generated credits equivalent to over 1.3 GtCO 2 eq by July 2013. Its environmental effectiveness has been mixed due to concerns about the additionality of projects, the validity of baselines, the possibility of emissions leakage, and recent credit price decreases (medium evidence; medium agreement). CDM projects were concentrated in a limited number of countries. [13.7.2, 13.13.1.2, 14.3.7.1] Recent UNFCCC negotiations have sought to include more ambitious contributions from the countries with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, mitigation contributions from a broader set of countries, and new finance and technology mechanisms. Under the 2010 Cancún Agreement, developed countries formalized voluntary pledges of quantified, economywide emission reduction targets and some developing countries formalized voluntary pledges to mitigation actions. The distributional impact of the agreement will depend in part on the magnitude and sources of financing, although the scientific literature on this point is limited, because financing mechanisms are evolving more rapidly than respective scientific assessments (low evidence; low agreement). Under the 2011 Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, delegates agreed to craft a future legal regime that would be 'applicable to all Parties … under the Convention' and would include substantial new financial support and technology arrangements to benefit developing countries, but the delegates did not specify means for achieving those ends. [13.5.1.1, 13.13.1.3, 16.2.1.1] As a complement to – or in the absence of — a new binding, international agreement on climate change, policy linkages among existing and future regional, national, and subnational climate policies offer potential climate mitigation benefits (medium evidence, medium agreement) [13.3.1, 13.5.1.3, 13.5.3]. Linkages can be established between carbon markets and through regional cooperation, such as embodying mitigation objectives in trade agreements or the joint construction of infrastructures that facilitate reduction in carbon emissions [14.5].

Upload: terraeco

Post on 26-Dec-2015

2.157 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Summary for Policy Makers Section 5.2 – Draft Submitted for Government ApprovalApril 7, 2014

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Item_A.pdf

1  

Summary for Policy Makers Section 5.2 – Draft Submitted for Government Approval 

April 7, 2014 

 

International cooperation on climate change has diversified over the past decade. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) remains a primary international forum for climate negotiations, and is seen by many as the most legitimate international climate policy venue due in part to its virtually universal membership [13.3.1, 13.4.1.4, 13.5]. However, other institutions organized at many different scales have risen in importance due to the inclusion of climate change issues in other policy arenas and growing awareness of the co‐benefits that can arise from linking climate mitigation and other issues [13.3, 13.4, 13.5]. 

Existing and proposed international climate agreements and instruments vary in their focus and degree of centralization. International climate agreements and instruments span: multilateral agreements (such as the Kyoto Protocol targets and accounting rules), harmonized national policies, and decentralized but coordinated national policies (such as planned linkages of national and sub‐national emissions trading schemes). Also, regional and regionally coordinated policies exist and have been proposed. [Figure 13.2, 13.4, 13.13.2, 14.4] 

The Kyoto Protocol was the first binding step toward implementing the principles and goals provided by the UNFCCC, but it has had limited effects on global emissions because some countries did not ratify the Protocol, some Parties did not meet their commitments, and its commitments applied to only a portion of the global economy (medium evidence, low agreement). The Parties collectively surpassed their collective emission reduction target in the first commitment period, but the Protocol credited emissions reductions that would have occurred even in its absence. The Kyoto Protocol does not directly influence the emissions of non‐Annex I countries, which have grown rapidly over the past decade. [5.2, 13.13.1.1] The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which created a market for emissions offsets from developing countries, had generated credits equivalent to over 1.3 GtCO2eq by July 2013. Its environmental effectiveness has been mixed due to concerns about the additionality of projects, the validity of baselines, the possibility of emissions leakage, and recent credit price decreases (medium evidence; medium agreement). CDM projects were concentrated in a limited number of countries. [13.7.2, 13.13.1.2, 14.3.7.1] 

Recent UNFCCC negotiations have sought to include more ambitious contributions from the countries with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, mitigation contributions from a broader set of countries, and new finance and technology mechanisms. Under the 2010 Cancún Agreement, developed countries formalized voluntary pledges of quantified, economy‐wide emission reduction targets and some developing countries formalized voluntary pledges to mitigation actions. The distributional impact of the agreement will depend in part on the magnitude and sources of financing, although the scientific literature on this point is limited, because financing mechanisms are evolving more rapidly than respective scientific assessments (low evidence; low agreement). Under the 2011 Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, delegates agreed to craft a future legal regime that would be 'applicable to all Parties … under the Convention' and would include substantial new financial support and technology arrangements to benefit developing countries, but the delegates did not specify means for achieving those ends. [13.5.1.1, 13.13.1.3, 16.2.1.1] 

As a complement to – or in the absence of — a new binding, international agreement on climate change, policy linkages among existing and future regional, national, and sub‐national climate policies offer potential climate mitigation benefits (medium evidence, medium agreement) [13.3.1, 13.5.1.3, 13.5.3]. Linkages can be established between carbon markets and through regional cooperation, such as embodying mitigation objectives in trade agreements or the joint construction of infrastructures that facilitate reduction in carbon emissions [14.5]. 

Page 2: Item_A.pdf

2  

International cooperation may have a role in stimulating investment, financial incentives, and regulations to promote technological innovation and diffusion (medium evidence, medium agreement). Technology policy can help lower mitigation costs, thereby also increasing incentives for participation and compliance with international cooperative efforts, particularly in the long run. [1.4.4, 2.6, 3.5, 4.3, 13.3, 13.9] 

Regional initiatives – those between the national and global scales ‐ focused on mitigation are either being developed or implemented in many areas. Their impact on global mitigation has been limited to date. (medium confidence) Many climate policies could be more environmentally and economically effective if implemented across broad geographical regions because of the co‐location of infrastructures and trade advantages. Only in areas of deep integration (e.g., in the European Union) have such initiatives had an identifiable impact on mitigation through binding policies that include regulation and market‐based mechanisms. Many regional initiatives oriented around goals other than climate change, such as coordinated investments in natural gas and electricity grids as well as regional trade and investment agreements, are relevant for mitigation. Some new literature suggests that regional power pools and gas grids have supported the replacement of high‐emissions fuels with low emission or renewable energy sources, and that regional trade agreements with environmental agreement have on average modestly reduced emissions among participants. [14.4, 14.5] 

International cooperation regarding mitigation and adaptation policies and measures can be understood in the context of broader societal goals. Several framing concepts and principles can be brought to bear: maximizing global net benefits; equity, burden‐sharing, and related principles of distributive justice; precaution and prevention of future risks; and sustainable development. These criteria may at times conflict, forcing tradeoffs among them. Distributional equity and fairness may be considered important attributes of climate policy because of their impact on feasibility of international cooperation. [2.3, 3.10, 4.6, 13.2]