Outline of the Paper

1. 1. Introduction2 Current commitments under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol3 History of negotiations on a future agreement4 Current activities relevant to a future

agreement5. Conclusions

History of negotiation process

First review of commitments launches process to agree by COP3

Second review of commitments: No agreement whether the issue includes commitments for developing countries - issue deferred

UNFCCC adoptedFirst review of adequacy to be at COP1 Second review of adequacy to be in 1998

COP1 1995

1992

Kyoto Protocol adoptedCOP3 1997

COP4 1998

G77 proposal: “review of adequacy of the implementation”No agreement - issue deferred

COP5 1999

No agreement - issue deferredCOP6 2000

No agreement - issue deferredCOP7 2001

Initiation of process of new targets for Annex I PartiesCOP11 2005COP/MOP1

No agreement on adequacy - issue deferredImplicit discussion of commitments under Delhi Declaration

COP8 2002

Discussion of adequacy of commitments of the Kyoto Protocol

COP12 2006COP/MOP2

No agreement on adequacy - issue deferredCOP9 2003

No agreement on adequacy - issue deferredAgreement to hold a seminar

COP10 2004

No major decisionsCOP2 1996

Kyoto Protocol enters into forceFeb 2005

Seminar of governmental experts (SOGE) on past and futureMay 2005

Initiation of a process to discuss the future

Current activities Current activitiesOpen ended ad-hoc working group (AWG) for new reduction targets for Annex I countries

Dialogue on future steps for cooperative action under the Convention

2005

Review of the Kyoto Protocol

2006 2007

G8 plus 5:Ministerial dialogue, IEA and World Bank

Fut

ure

syst

em

Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries

2008

Asia Pacific Partnership on Development and Climate

Ad-hoc working group (AWG)• Participation: Under the Kyoto Protocol, USA and Australia are

observers• Objective: New commitments for Annex I countries• Deadline: no gap between the first and second commitment periods • Content: Entering an analysis phase, where countries have been

invited to present information relevant to reduction commitments including mitigation potentials. Indicative, non-exhaustive list of issues:

– 1. Scientific basis for determining the level of ambition of further commitments by Annex I Parties

– 2. Emission trends and mitigation potential of Annex I Parties– 3. Experience gained and lessons learned in implementing the Kyoto

Protocol– 4. Architecture of further commitments for Annex I Parties– 5. Legal matters

Dialogue on future steps for cooperative action under the

Convention• For all UNFCCC Parties• Informal • Two year process with 4 workshops• Major issues:

– Sustainable development– Adaptation– Technology potential– Market-based opportunities

• “Will not open any negotiations leading to new commitments”• First meeting (May 2006): Open exchange of views. “Positive

incentives for action in developing countries” was heard often• In August 2007,last workshop held and the co-facilitators will

present their report at COP13

Reducing deforestation in developing countries

• New upon initiative by Papua New Guinea, who initially proposed a national cap for deforestation

• Discussed under SBSTA, to report back to COP in December 2007

• Several workshops last was in mid August 2007

Positions• Gaps in positions: Many gaps and areas of disagreement before a new

universal agreement can be agreed. It is unlikely that countries have solid positions on all topics necessary to form a full regime

– Ambition level: EU and others favour 2°C, AOSIS calls it unacceptably high, but many countries are silent Only EU calls for a 15% to 50% reduction of global emissions in 2050 below 1990 levelsNecessary reductions by 2020 by Annex I countries are only provided by the EU (15% to 30%) and the environmental NGOs (30% to 35%)

– Positive incentives: All countries seem to agree, but no country has specified exact details

– Participation: No country has mentioned a list of countries or a way to determine which countries participate at which levels

– Adaptation: All countries agree on adaptation as a major element– Small deforestation countries: New flexible initiative on avoided deforestation

• Large number of discussion processes enhanced consideration of climate change on the international level but has yet to lead to accelerated pace of decisions

Article 2 UNFCCC: Medium and Long Term Goals

• Long term goals to be framed in terms of contributions to sustainable development goals rather than solely in terms of GHG emission reductions

• Sao Paulo proposal suggests a basket of goals comprising

– Temperature limit– GHG concentration limit– Range of millennium development/sustainable

development related goals

Commitments of Annex I/Annex B Parties

• Deep reductions of emissions by Annex I Parties• Legally binding commitments and compliance

mechanisms• Strong support CDM• Domestic action should form the principal basis

for achievement of Annex I Parties’ targets• CDM should only be used to meet “a part “of

Annex I Parties’ commitments. • Extension of the CDM levy (2% of the share of

the proceeds) to JI and to ET

Enhanced Implementation of Adaptation

• African countries are vulnerable• We must take a lead role in highlighting

vulnerability and adaptation issues • Adaptation issues have, however, been

most strongly followed by AOSIS and the LDC group.

• Focus on integrating adaptation issues with sustainable development and disaster risk reduction activities

Technology Transfer, Technology Research and Development

• The G77 has always emphasized the importance of technology research, development and modalities for technology transfer

• Idea of a Technology Fund financed by Annex I Parties put forward by Brazil in 1997

• During the seminar of Government Experts, India put forward The technology Transfer Acquisition Fund

• Sao Paulo proposal advances collaborative forms of research, development and deployment, through a Technology Fund financed by Annex I Parties