ASSESSMENT OF THE OUTCOME OF THE UNFCCC COP15 & CMP5, HELD IN COPENHAGEN, DEC March 2010

Background 2007 – international agreement to conclude negotiation of new multi-lateral climate regime beyond 2012 under the Convention and its’ Kyoto Protocol 2 Ad Hoc Working Groups – 1 under the Convention & 1 under the Kyoto Protocol After 2 yrs of negotiations – still disagreement on key questions –How to share and reflect responsibility, commitment and action among developed and developing countries; –How to verify and ensure compliance with respective commitments and linked to this, the question of –Who pays

SA Position for Copenhagen New binding climate change regime beyond 2012 must be ambitious, fair, inclusive and effective, therefore must –Be based on the principles of “equity and “common but differentiated responsibilities” & therefore maintain the 2 tracks – Convention & Kyoto –prioritise both mitigation of GHG emissions and the adaptation to climate change impacts equally –balance both climate and development imperatives –equitably share the limited remaining carbon space And therefore must specifically provide for –Developed country – ambitious binding economy wide emission reduction commitment under the KP (USA under the Convention) –Developing country – mitigation action recognised & MRV’ed –Comprehensive international adaptation programme –Both adaptation & mitigation action by developing countries supported by finance, technology & capacity building – MRV’ed –An effective mechanism/means to address response measures

Copenhagen process Fundamental disagreements among blocks –Developed country efforts to “kill Kyoto” –The legal nature of the Convention outcome – How to give effect to the principles of “equity & “common but differentiated responsibilities” – sharing the carbon space, developed country ambition & global goal –How to address adaptation & response measures –How to address finance & technology Evident that agreement would be difficult – many Danish COP President interventions, which –Were non-inclusive –Created distrust & extensive negotiation of process –Final days – convened 28 heads of state – to formulate a political agreement – the Copenhagen Accord –Due to process issues – Accord not adopted as a COP decision. Noted

Copenhagen Outcome Decisions under the Convention to –Continue AWG-LCA negotiation –Some progress on streamlining LCA text – but still disagreements (as above) –Decisions – Include Malta in A1; REDD methodology issues; CGE; 4th review of financial mechanism; GEF guidance; capacity building; admin & budget –Note the Copenhagen Accord Decisions under Kyoto –Continue AWG-KP negotiation –Some progress on streamlining LCA text – but still disagreement on “killing Kyoto” –Decisions – Guidance to CDM & ETS; Adaptation Fund; Compliance Committee; Capacity building; admin & budget

Copenhagen Accord The accord only noted – not agreed or adopted Accord represents political agreement among 28 Heads of State – drawn from regional groups – but excludes ALBA Political Agreement on some major elements –mechanism to record developed country economy-wide binding emission reduction targets, inclu the USA (submission due 31 Jan) –mechanism to record developing country emission reduction actions (submission due 31 Jan) –New finance operating entity for both adaptation and mitigation ($10 bn per yr up to 2012 & $100 bn per yr by 2020) –how to internationally measure, report and verify this action –Positive incentive approach to deforestation –a technology development and transfer mechanism Still major gaps and problems with Accord –mixes adaptation and response measures –continuation of Kyoto –Low ambition of developed world & therefore equitable sharing of carbon space & global goals

Political dynamics Developed countries –united to “kill Kyoto” (except Norway) –Divided on legal nature of their commitment – Umbrella Gp = domestically binding; EU & Env Integrity Gp = internationally binding –Divided on level of ambition of mid & long term commitment & global goal & how to share & recognise early action Developing country- united on principles but divided –Global goal (1,5 degree & 350ppm vs 2 degree & no ppm) –Differentiation (BASIC & OECD developing countries) their level of ambition & support for their uni-lateral action –Adaptation & response measures (ALBA - historical debt) –Financing REDD and REDD+ (fund vs market approach) –Submission of mitigation action ito Accord

Interest Blocks Developed countries – all = international competitiveness & bind large developing country emitters –US, Japan, Australia & Canada – pathway approach (no early action); domestically binding; no finance to BASIC, OPEC, OECD & Singapore; pluri-lateral approach – no multi-lateral –EU & Env Integrity Gp – bind US –EIT’s – action similar to large developing country emitters Developing Countries –Africa – still largely united (divisions = REDD; response measures; SA ambition) –SIDS – high global ambition; no linking of adaptation & response measures; differentiation –OPEC – low ambition; adaptation linked to response measures –ALBA – similar to OPEC concerns but high ambition & historical debt –LDC’s – similar to SID’s & Africa –BASIC – no differentiation; technology & finance

Accord Follow Up Letters from UNFCCC secretariat and others in Jan re 31 st Jan deadline for listing actions SA has listed an intention to reduce emissions by 34% by 2020 and 42% by 2025 conditional on a legally binding outcome in Mexico and provision of finance, technology and capacity building. 55 other countries have listed. Many listings also conditional eg US, Australia etc SA letter makes it clear that way forward is through multi-lateral process and UNFCCC negotiations. Need to resolve trust deficit in order to move forward.

SA Deviation from Business As Usual Figures calculated on basis of LTMS + IRP + CTF Portfolio Presumes that with conditionalities met + that all actions can be achieved Need to ensure alignment and integration with other processes such as IPAP, IRP as well as with climate policy process Detail also to be used to develop funding proposals – test Accord commitments.

Thank you