Time for Climate Justice Nov 2012

7/31/2019 Time for Climate Justice Nov 2012

1/6

Mohamed Adow,Senior Adviser,Global Advocacyand Alliances,Christian Aid

DOHA CLIMATE TALKS:A BETTER WAY FORWARDIn late November 2012, world governments will meet in Doha, Qatar,the Durban conference held in 2011.

Christian Aid believes Doha gives governments a vital opportunityto advance global cooperation in confronting the challenge of climatechange. It believes it is possible to achieve an ambitious outcomefrom the conference that will deliver on all the elements of thepackage agreed in Durban.

TIME FOR CLIMATE JUSTICENovember 2012 9

The intentions of the Conference are to:

~]P[XbTP]SPS^_cP\TP]X]VUd[P]Seffective second commitment periodof the Kyoto Protocol

~PSSaTbbcWT^dcbcP]SX]VXbbdTbd]STathe Convention track, in accordancewith the 2007 Bali mandate

~bTccWT]TV^cXPcX^]bd]STacWTDurban Platform for Enhanced Action(ADP) on a firm footing, with a viewto adopting a new legally-binding

agreement by 20151.

Christian Aid sees 2012 as an importantyear in which to advance and completethe work of the last seven. It believesthat the highest possible ambition isneeded by participating countries inorder to avoid dangerous climate changein the near-term, and that a scientifically-responsive, responsible, rules-basedclimate system must be preserved tobuild a strong foundation for the future

new agreement.

The scientific imperativeGovernments have agreed to:

~PV[^QP[V^P[c^[X\XccWT[TeT[ Uwarming to below 2oC abovepre-industrial levels by the year 2100

~aTeXTfcWXbcPaVTcc^T]bdaTXcbadequacy by 2015

~WT[_STeT[^_P]Sbd__^acbcaPcTVXTb

to cope with the impacts of climatechange that are already beingexperienced as the globaltemperature increases.

However, there is still a significant gapbetween the level of climate changemitigation required to stay below the2oC level, come 2020, and the actualityof global emissions. Scientists warn thatthe mitigation pledges on the table setthe world on a 2.5-5oC warming track

above pre-industrial levels by 21002. Allthis is happening at a time when, after0.74oC of warming already, the worldis experiencing terrifying impacts ofclimate change, such as an increase inthe frequency of droughts, falling cropproductivity, water stress and risingsea levels which are only predictedto worsen as the global averagetemperature increases3.

Political context

There are three areas of negotiation intrain for the Doha conference, each withdistinct mandates and timeframes. Thefirst of these, taken on from the BaliRoad Map, addresses commitmentsand actions in the short-term. From thescientific evidence, these are of theutmost importance. These agreementswere not concluded in Copenhagen,


2/6

Sequencing negotiationsShort-term negotiations

Mitigation commitments forindustrialised countries under the KyotoProtocol These negotiations beganin 2005, and the delay in agreementis on the part of rich industrialisedcountries, combined with the bad faithof governments such as that of Canada,who have withdrawn from the talksentirely. This is a key impediment in

international climate negotiations.

Long-term cooperative action(as outlined by the Bali Action Planin 2007 and, therefore, now needingresolution) After five years ofnegotiations, there is still a failure toagree on:

~P[^]VcTa\V[^QP[V^P[UâT\XbbX^]reductions, under the shared visionnegotiations, to achieve the objectiveof the Convention

~W^fc^_aêXSTPST`dPcTbRP[TSup financing to support developingcountries with adaptation, mitigationand technology cooperation

~fWPcR^\_PaPQ[TTUUâcbX]cWTUâ\of economy-wide targets, the US andthose other developed countries notjoining the Kyoto second commitmentperiod should take

~W^fc^T]bdaTcWPccWT\XcXVPcX^]

actions of developing countries aregiven the financial, technological andcapacity-building support they needfor them to be implemented.

The groups mandate is to continue itswork and reach an agreed outcomethrough various decisions of theConference of the Parties in Doha,after which time it will be terminated.

November 2012

2

in 2009, and have been delayed everyyear since then.

~=TV^cXPcX^]caPRZ(The Kyoto Protocol KP):This is overseen by the AdHoc Working Group on furthercommitments for Annex 1(industrialised) countries under theKyoto Protocol (AWG-KP)4. It focuseson the mitigation commitments forindustrialised countries. The mandateof this group is to produce a secondcommitment period under theProtocol.

~=TV^cXPcX^]caPRZ!(Long-term Cooperative Actionunder the Convention LCA):This is overseen by the Ad HocWorking Group on Long-termCooperative Action (AWG-LCA)5. Itsremit is to enable the full, effectiveand enhanced implementation ofthe Convention through long-term

cooperative action6. It covers sharedvision; enhanced actions on mitigation;adaptation; capacity building;technology development and transfer;and the provision of financial resourcesto support developing countriesactions on mitigation, adaptation andtechnology cooperation.

~=TV^cXPcX^]caPRZ"(Durban Platform forEnhanced Action ADP):

This new negotiation track, lookingat the longer-term, was establishedin Durban last year7. It involvesnegotiations towards a new globalagreement under the Convention,applicable to all parties, and thelaunching of a workplan to enhancemitigation ambition. The intentionis to increase emissions cuts to thegreatest possible levels.

There is still abetween the levelof climate changemitigation requiredto stay below the2oC level, come

2020, and theactuality of globalemissions.


3/6

November 2012

3

Longer-term negotiations~A new global agreement under the

Convention, applicable to all parties The ADP is to complete its work nolater than 2015, in order to adopt aprotocol, another legal instrument oragreed outcome with legal force underthe Convention8 at COP21, which willonly come into effect from 2020.

It is Christian Aids view that the partiesin Doha should first address negotiation

tracks 1 and 2 (the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA), to ensure that there are strongand effective institutions and rules thatcan deliver a pathway to a safer climatenow in the immediate and short term.These rules and institutions can thenserve as a basis for longer-termagreements. After the work of thosebodies has been concluded, partiescan start the work on the ADP on a firmfooting, building on the success of thepast. Attempts to link the past with the

future have the potential to unravel thewhole international rules-based systemand the work of the last seven years,including the Kyoto Protocol (which isthe only international, legally bindingregime and includes vital architecturalelements required for the future regime).Any such unravelling, leading to a worldwithout strong and effective climatecontrols and provision of financialsupport, would be a disaster for theclimate and for the worlds most

vulnerable people.

Christian Aid calls on the parties toensure that the work of the ADPdoes not duplicate or prejudice thenegotiations already under the KyotoProtocol and Long-term CooperativeAction, nor distract attention from thescience-, rules-based, top-down systemthat exists under the Convention and itsKyoto Protocol.

Parties must also avoid any situationthat could allow those countries that

The need forfar greater thanthe US$100bnthat developedcountries havepledged tomobilise by 2020.

are hanging back, have left, or thatwant to dismantle the existing climateregime, to set the terms of the climatedebate. Those advocating business asusual will not solve the climate crisis.Truly ambitious parties must build thestrongest system they can, as thepeoples of the world demand andexpect their leaders to deliver, to tackleclimate change.

Financing gap

There remains a gaping hole on sourcesof finance for the 2013-2019 period.Without adequate, scaled-up financing,and firm commitments after 2012 whenthe fast start finance period ends, itshard to see how developing countrieswill adapt and contribute to the globalmitigation efforts. The need for climatefinance is far greater than the US$100bnthat developed countries have pledgedto mobilise by 2020. Given that theextreme weather and climate events

already happening are causing billionsof dollars in economic losses, and arepredicted to worsen, its important forrich countries to realise that the less wedo now, the more we pay later. ChristianAid calls on rich countries to commit toat least double the fast start financinglevels intended from 2013, and committo the initial capitalisation of the GreenClimate Fund, with agreed criteria forthis and additional finance.

A business as usual outcomeversus protecting themultilateral rules-based systemOver the years, the divide betweenrich and poor nations in the climatenegotiations has been increasing. Thishas been exacerbated by a numberof developed countries, which weresupposed to lead in tackling climatechange9, backing away from their legalcommitments. The USA has not onlyrefused to join the Kyoto Protocol buthas also taken a wrecking ball to the


4/6

November 2012

4

It is possible

that, in a realsense, developedcountriesemissions willactually increaseby 2020, in clearcontraventionof what theConventionrequires andwhat we need for

a safe climate.

rules-based, legally-binding targetsystem by proposing a pledge andreview, or do-as-you-like system, andconvincing many other developedcountries to join it. Canada haswithdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol, andJapan and Russia have communicatedtheir intention not to join the secondcommitment period. Australia andNew Zealand are unclear on wherethey stand. At the same time, theseand other developed countries have

put forward weak targets that could befurther undermined by the existence ofsignificant accounting loopholes. It ispossible that, in a real sense, developedcountries emissions will actuallyincrease by 2020, in clear contraventionof what the Convention requires andwhat we need for a safe climate.

These countries prefer a voluntary,pledge-based approach, whichenables governments to take oncommitments on a unilateral basis.They have systematically opposedthe top-down, rules-based approachincluding aggregate targets, commonaccounting rules and the compliancesystem for developed countries, whileseeking to move to a global agreementwith weaker obligations for themand stronger ones for developingcountries. This lacks any principles ofequity, or common but differentiatedresponsibilities and commitments,

regarding the means to implementcommitments for developing countries thereby moving away from thefundamental principles of theClimate Convention.

To achieve this, these countries areseeking to close the Kyoto Protocol andLong-term Cooperative Action trackswithout reaching sufficiently ambitious,meaningful and effective outcomesfor the pre-2020 period thereby, ineffect, dismantling the existing

climate architecture.

They aim to terminate the KyotoProtocol after reaching a soft secondcommitment period that avoidsmultilateral agreement based on soundcarbon accounting rules, while keepingcarbon markets operating and availableto all countries, including those whojump ship from the Kyoto Protocol, andextending the end-date to 2020, riskinglock-in to dangerously low targets.

They also aim to terminate the workinggroup on Long-term Cooperative Actionwithout fulfilling its mandate; erase thedistinction between developed anddeveloping countries, removing therequirement that developed countriestake comparable commitments amongthemselves; and also end discussionson adaptation, finance, technologyand capacity without honouring theircommitments or agreeing to new ones.

In effect, the developed countries areproposing a business as usual way

forward that contains negligible targetsand no new additional finance to fightclimate change. They are proposing thatthe world in 2020 looks substantially thesame as the world looks now, but withsignificantly more frequent and moreserious climate impacts. Of course,these countries do not put it this way,but rather assert that this is what ispolitically realistic. They are continuingwith their unilaterally declared pledges,made in the disputed Copenhagen

Accord of 2009, which are insufficient both in their substance, as effectivecurbs on emissions, and in their form,as non-legal proposals that do notbind governments to the commonmultilateral rules in any meaningfulway. The locking-in of this system inDoha would cement a shift away fromthe effective multilateral, science-, andrules-based system that is seen asvital for a single, global, legally-bindingagreement under the Durban Platform

for Enhanced Action.


5/6

November 2012

5

The Doha outcomemust preventshifting ofclimate burdens,the weakeningof developedcountriescommitments[and] efforts tolimit the means ofimplementation.

Christian Aid believes that the Dohaoutcome must prevent shifting ofclimate burdens onto developingcountries, the weakening of developedcountries commitments, limitingthe means of implementation, anda tendency to shift to a weakerclimate regime.

The outcome should rather preserveand strengthen the existingclimate architecture of the KyotoProtocol and Convention in order toeffectively tackle climate change,while protecting the right tosustainable development.

Outcomes in DohaUnder the Kyoto Protocol, governmentsmust adopt a ratifiable amendmentthat preserves the top-down, science-based, multilateral rules-based system.To ensure its continuity and fullimplementation, this should take effect

and apply to the industrialised countries,with quantified emission commitmentsfor the second commitment period,provisionally from 1 January 2013.

Current pledges put forward by thecountries are too low to limit globalwarming to safe levels that do notthreaten the planet and its people. Andit is important that they should not lock-in these insufficient pledges for the fullcommitment period. Instead, in orderto ensure that they meet the demands

of the most vulnerable countries, andreduce their emissions by at least 40per cent by 2020, parties must agree aprocess allowing countries to adjust andincrease the level of their ambition in thecourse of the commitment period.

The EU should avoid locking-in itsinsufficient 20 per cent pledge, keepingin mind that if they implement theircurrent domestic plans they will reducetheir emissions by over 20 per cent.

And so, to move beyond their businessas usual level they should increasetheir 2020 pledge to 30 per cent (atminimum), and commit to work towardsincreasing it to more than 40 per centin the course of the secondcommitment period.

To ensure the environmental integrityof the second commitment period,governments must close the loopholesthat threaten to negate any actions/targets they make, and agree to restrict

any carrying over of Assigned AmountUnits (AAUs) from the first commitmentperiod as credit in the secondcommitment period.

Under the Convention track, theAWG-LCA has delivered some newinstitutions, actions and results,which potentially strengthen theimplementation of the Convention,but which still need effective applicationto ensure they are not empty shells.

This is the core work of the LCA and,because there are political issues thatneed to be resolved, cannot be passedon to technical bodies to deal with. Inaddition, there are outstanding issuesthat must be resolved in Doha to ensurea comprehensive approach is agreedto the climate crisis at an internationallevel. At a minimum, Doha must deliver:

~PS^_cX^]Qh]^]:h^c^STeT[^_TScountries of ambitious, legally-binding

emissions-reduction commitmentsup to 2020 under the Convention,comparable in effort and transparencywith Kyoto parties under the KyotoProtocol and

~P]PVaTT\T]c^][^]VcTa\b^daRTband scale of finance, starting in 2013.

But we also recognise some of the LCAissues might not be resolved by Doha including the negotiations on long-term goals for emissions reductions


6/6

November 2012

Poverty is an outrage against humanity. It robs people of dignity, freedomand hope, of power over their own lives.

Christian Aid has a vision an end to poverty and we believe thatvision can become a reality. We urge you to join us.

Christian Aid, 35 Lower Marsh, London SE1 7RLt. 020 7620 4444 christianaid.org.uk

UK registered charity number 1105851

Company number 5171525 Scot charity no.SC039150 NI charity no. XR94639 Companyno. NI059154 ROI charity no. CHY 6998Company no. 426928

The Christian Aid name and logo are

trademarks of Christian Aid;

Poverty Over is a trademark of Christian Aid.

Christian Aid November 2012 13-147-J730

Printed on 100 per cent recycled paper

1 The 17th session of the

Conference of Parties (COP17)

decision 1/CP17, held in Durban,South Africa Establishment of

the Ad Hoc Working Group on the

Durban Platform for Enhanced

Action.

2 The Emissions Gap Report,

United Nations Environment

Programme, unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgapreport/

3 Special Report on Managing

the Risks of Extreme Events and

Disasters to Advance Climate

Change Adaptation (SREX), IPCC,

ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/report/

4 UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol,unfccc.int/bodies/body/6409.php

5 UNFCCC, Long-term Cooperative

Action under the Convention,unfccc.int/bodies/body/6431.php

6 UNFCCC, 13th session of the

Conference of the Parties (COP13)

decision 1/CP.13 Bali Action Plan,unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/

cop13/eng/06a01.pdf#page=3

7 UNFCCC, Durban Platform forEnhanced Action, unfccc.int/bodies/

body/6645.php

8 UNFCCC, Establishment of an AdHoc Working Group on the Durban

Platfrom for Enhanced Action,

unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/

cop17/eng/09a01.pdf#page=2

9 UNFCCC article 3.1, The

developed countries should take

the lead in combating climatechange and the adverse effects

thereof.

10 Several parties proposed a clearprocess to discuss equity in the

AWG-LCA in-session workshop

on equitable access to sustainable

development see the informalsummary of the workshop, unfccc.

int/files/bodies/awg-lca/application/

pdf/20120524_equity_1650.pdf

Endnotes

and peaking, and contextual elements,such as equity and equitable access tosustainable development, which shouldunderpin any agreed goals. These thingsare also relevant to the work of theADP and so their negotiations must behoused appropriately in the ADP.

The Durban Platform forEnhanced Action (ADP)Under this platform, governmentsshould give greater detail to the

mandate of the ADP, particularly itscontent and ambition, and how itwould integrate science, equity andthe existing rules-based multilateralclimate regime.

To deliver a fair, principle- and science-based outcome by 2015, parties mustapproach the work on the DurbanPlatform in an ambitious and balancedway, building on the results of theKyoto Protocol and the Convention

track. There should be particularemphasis on agreeing an equitableapproach to sharing costs of mitigationand adaptation among rich countries(arguably this has been the biggesthindrance to forging a deal to preventdangerous climate change), whilesupporting the vulnerable communitieswith finance, technology and capacitybuilding to adapt and develop cleanly.

A clear process and workplan foraddressing equity needs to beagreed in Doha10 as a priority. Theparties need to develop a commonunderstanding on the key equityissues, principles, equitable effort/burden-sharing approaches andhow they can be put into practice.This should be done to enable theADP negotiations to deliver a fair,ambitious and effective globalagreement by 2015.

Documents

Time for Climate Justice Nov 2012