1. 1 Presentation by South Africa to AWG2 Initial views on ‘how to determine further emission limitation and reduction commitments’ AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON FURTHER COMMITMENTS FOR ANNEX I PARTIES UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL In-session workshop at the second session 7 November 2006 Nairobi, Kenya

2. 2 Scenarios for stabilisation Annex I Parties asked to provide information about “scenarios for the stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and on the implications of these scenarios”. Recurring theme that annual emissions covered are a small share of global emissions Valid observation needs to be put into perspective comparing relative contributions in cumulative rather than annual emissions In historical terms and looking forward

3. 3 Cumulative emissions matter “The concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere is determined more by cumulative rather than by year-by- year emissions.” IPCC Third Assessment Report (TS p. 61)

4. 4 Annual Emission Data, 2002 Annual CO 2 emissions of developing and developed countries - developed countries emitted 14 058 Mt CO 2 (59%) - developing countries emitted 9 606 Mt CO 2 (41%) Data source: Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT), WRI, Washington, DC, http://cait.wri.org

5. 5 Cumulative Emission Data, 1900-2000 Data source: CAIT Cumulative CO 2 emissions - developed countries emitted 741.3 Gt CO 2 (77%) - developing countries emitted 220.6 Gt CO 2 (23%)

6. 6 Comparing annual emissions …

7. 7 … to cumulative starting 1950

8. 8 Article 3.9 Has very clear focus –“Commitments for subsequent periods for Parties included in Annex I” established by amendments to Annex B What are reasons why this is important? And what information might be needed?

9. 9 Threats of serious or irreversible damages The reason why we are here If there were lack of ambition  adverse impacts of climate change will affect all, but most particularly LDCs Millions of lives at risk in Africa Need more urgent action –conclude the work of the AWG by 2008

10. 10 Secure carbon markets Carbon markets essential for cost-effective climate action Point Carbon 2006 report – estimated transactions –CDM 397 Mt CO2eq – EU ETS 362 Mt CO2eq –JI 28 Mt CO2eq How has CDM already assisted Annex B Parties in achieving their goals for 1st commitment period No gap to 2nd commitment period

11. 11 Funding for adaptation CDM share of proceeds flows to Adaptation Fund 2% of 1.9 billion of CERs transacted = € 38 million More than contributions to the Special Climate Change Fund (as of April 2006) And yet still orders of magnitude smaller than what is required

12. 12 How much do we need to know to take action? Precautionary approach should be applied to the AWG process Lack of full certainty on all issues not a reason for postponing urgent action Possible to draw on what we already know Gather other information within the time-frame set by decision 1/CMP.1 Without raising other issues that are not necessary to come to a decision

13. 13 Updating Annex B SA welcomes tabling of specific numbers by some Annex B Parties and regional economic integration organizations Would like to learn more about the information used to determine quantified emission reductions for subsequent periods Encourage other Parties included in Annex I to do the same, even where there may be uncertainty, provide specific numbers

14. 14 Thank you