1. Evolution of commitments under the UNFCCC: Involving newly industrialized economies and developing countries UNFCCC side event 4 June 2003 Niklas Höhne n.hoehne@ecofys.de ECOFYS, Köln, Germany

2. Evolution of commitments ECOFYS Energy and Environment European research and consulting company In total 200 employees Offices in the Netherlands, Germany, UK, Spain, Poland, Belgium Example projects: –“Sectoral objectives”: Sharing the EU Kyoto targets between different sectors for the European Commission –Development of the emission monitoring guidelines for the EU emission trading system (with FIELD, KPMG and TÜV) –Study on future international climate commitments for the German EPA

3. Evolution of commitments Evolution of commitments under the UNFCCC: Involving newly industrialized economies and developing countries By ECOFYS: Dipl. Phys. Niklas Höhne Dr. Jochen Harnisch Dr. Dian Phylipsen Prof. Dr. Kornelis Blok Mw. Carolina Galleguillos On behalf of the German Federal Environmental Agency Research Report 201 41 255 Climate Change 01/03 http://www.umweltbundesamt.org/fpdf-l/2246.pdf

4. Evolution of commitments Outline of the report 1.Introduction 2.The need for the evolution of commitments 3.Specific difficulties 4.Equity considerations 5.Current approaches 6.Elaboration and assessment of existing approaches 7.New approaches 8.Comparison of approaches 9.Some current views 10.Recommendations

5. Evolution of commitments Outline of the report 1.Introduction 2.The need for the evolution of commitments 3.Specific difficulties 4.Equity considerations 5.Current approaches 6.Elaboration and assessment of existing approaches 7.New approaches 8.Comparison of approaches 9.Some current views 10.Recommendations

6. Evolution of commitments Stabilization Source: IPCC Synthesis Report, 2001

7. Evolution of commitments Historic emissions Source: Marland et al. / Houghton et al. / EDGAR 3.2, gases added using IPCC 1995 GWPs Annex I Non-Annex I

8. Evolution of commitments Future emissions 1910192019301940195019601970198019902000 x 10 7 Annex I Year N2O CH4 Forestry CO2 Fossil CO2 191019201930194019501960197019801990 x 10 7 Non-Annex I Year N2O CH4 Forestry CO2 Fossil CO2 1900 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Emissions in Tg CO2eq. 1900 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Emissions in Tg CO2eq. 2000 2010202020302040 IPCC SRES A1B scenario Annex I Non-Annex I

9. Evolution of commitments The need for evolution of commitments Stabilization: For any stabilization, global emissions need to peak and decrease steadily thereafter The sooner the peak the lower the stabilization level UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol Ultimate objective: stabilization of GHG concentrations “Common but differentiated responsibilities” Annex I countries reduce emissions by about 5% in 2008-2012 relative to 1990 USA rejects the Kyoto Protocol Further commitments are necessary so that: Developed countries reduce emissions substantially Developing countries’ emissions do not grow as much as expected

10. Evolution of commitments Outline of the report 1.Introduction 2.The need for the evolution of commitments 3.Specific difficulties 4.Equity considerations 5.Current approaches 6.Elaboration and assessment of existing approaches 7.New approaches 8.Comparison of approaches 9.Some current views 10.Recommendations

11. Evolution of commitments Specific difficulties Rules of the negotiation process History of the negotiations Time scales and inertia of the climate system National circumstances and resulting positions by countries and groups

12. Evolution of commitments Country groups Australia Canada Iceland Japan Bulgaria Estonia Latvia Lithuania Romania Slovenia Annex II Economies in transition (EITs) Annex I Liechtenstein Monaco *: Added to Annex I only for the purpose of the Kyoto Protocol at COP7 Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland New Zealand Norway Switzerland United States of America Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom European Union Belarus Croatia Kazakhstan* Russian Federation Ukraine Turkey EU Applicants Cyprus Malta Czech Republic Hungary Poland Slovakia OECD Korea Mexico

13. Evolution of commitments Outline of the report 1.Introduction 2.The need for the evolution of commitments 3.Specific difficulties 4.Equity considerations 5.Current approaches 6.Elaboration and assessment of existing approaches 7.New approaches 8.Comparison of approaches 9.Some current views 10.Recommendations

14. Evolution of commitments Current approaches Issues to be addressed National emissions targets (absolute or intensity targets) Or Non-quantified target (P&Ms)? Who participates and when? What if the commitment is not met? What is the type of the commitment? What is the stringency of individual commitment? How ? How much? Who?

15. Evolution of commitments Outline of the report 1.Introduction 2.The need for the evolution of commitments 3.Specific difficulties 4.Equity considerations 5.Current approaches 6.Elaboration and assessment of existing approaches 7.New approaches 8.Comparison of approaches 9.Some current views 10.Recommendations

16. Evolution of commitments Approaches 1. Continuing Kyoto 2. Intensity targets 3. Contraction and Convergence 4. Global Triptych approach (extended) 5. Multi-sector convergence approach 6. Multistage approach (FAIR) 7. Equal mitigation cost 8. Coordinated policies and measures 9. Extended Global Triptych approach 10. New multistage approach 11. Performance targets

17. Evolution of commitments Assessment criteria Ecological criteria: Environmental effectiveness: Stabilization can be reached Encouragement of early action also without commitment Political criteria: Equity principles: Need, responsibility, capability Agreement with fundamental positions of major constituencies Economic criteria: Accounting for structural differences Minimize adverse economic effects on the committed country Technical criteria: Compatible with Convention and Protocol Moderate political and technical requirements for the negotiations: Not too complex, data and methods available

18. Evolution of commitments Equity principles Often: Principle Egalitarian Approach Per capita emission rights Approach Need e.g. Responsibility Capability Here: Principles Contraction and convergence (how, how much and who) e.g. Polluter pays Reductions prop. to emissions Convention Article 3.1: “... common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities...”

19. Evolution of commitments Quantification of emissions Quantification: References emissions (IPCC SRES scenarios) Emissions of all individual countries under all approaches until 2100, assuming Kyoto (Annex I) and SRES (Non-Annex I) until 2010 Dimensions: Global emission reduction goal: Global emissions in 2020 +27% above 1990 for CO 2, CH 4 and N 2 O. Consistent with path that leads to 450 ppmv CO 2 concentration Reference scenarioIPCC SRES A2 Parameters of the approach(see approach)

20. Evolution of commitments Approaches 1. Continuing Kyoto 2. Intensity targets 3. Contraction and Convergence 4. Global Triptych approach (extended) 5. Multi-sector convergence approach 6. Multistage approach (FAIR) 7. Equal mitigation cost 8. Coordinated policies and measures 9. Extended Global Triptych approach 10. New multistage approach 11. Performance targets

21. Evolution of commitments Continuing Kyoto Chosen parameters Ad-hoc targets for Annex I: -20% every 10 years as of 2010 Increasing participation if GDP/cap close to global average Some countries participate as of 2020 (here Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Persian Golf States, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand) In 2020 +27% above 1990 Reaching around 480ppmv CO 2 2100 How ? How much? Who?

22. Evolution of commitments Continuing Kyoto Change in emissions from 1990 to 2020 (CO2, CH4, N2O)

23. Evolution of commitments Continuing Kyoto Critical factors: Participation threshold: If lowered so that e.g. China is participating, –7% reduction of the participating countries over 10 years instead of -20%, is sufficient to reach same goal in 2020 Reduction of participating states: 10% over 10 years instead of 20% lead to global emissions +36% over 1990 Reference scenarios: Other IPCC SRES scenarios lead to emissions +2% to +33% over 1990

24. Evolution of commitments Continuing Kyoto Ecological criteria: Environmental effectiveness: ++ Encouragement of early action- Political criteria: Equity principles: Need, responsibility, capability+ Agreement with fundamental positions0 Economic criteria: Accounting for structural differences/ Minimize adverse economic effects+ Technical criteria: Compatible with Convention and Protocol++ Moderate political and technical requirements++ Assessment

25. Evolution of commitments Contraction and Convergence By the Global Commons Institute Contraction: Definition of global emission path (450ppmv) Convergence: Per capita emissions of all countries converge by e.g. 2050 How ? How much? Who?

26. Evolution of commitments Contraction and Convergence Per-capita emissions emissions converge until 2050 on level below current Non-Annex I average Increase in emissions possible for some countries from 2010 to 2020 but lower than reference scenario Low “tropical hot air”: (10-30% of the demand) e.g. in Philippines United Arab Emirates 56.4 USA25.3 Saudi Arabia18.3 Russian Federation16.7 Annex I15.1 EU10.8 South Korea 10.4 Brazil7.5 Hungary 6.7 World6.4 China4.9 Non-Annex I4.1 India2.4 Egypt2.4 Burundi0.6 Source: EDGAR / UN / ECOFYS tCO 2 eq./cap in 1995, a ll sectors incl. forestry, CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O

27. Evolution of commitments Contraction and Convergence Change in emissions from 1990 to 2020 (CO2, CH4, N2O)

28. Evolution of commitments Contraction and convergence Ecological criteria: Environmental effectiveness: ++ Encouragement of early action++ Political criteria: Equity principles: Need, responsibility, capability+ Agreement with fundamental positions- Economic criteria: Accounting for structural differences-- Minimize adverse economic effects+ Technical criteria: Compatible with Convention and Protocol+ Moderate political and technical requirements++ Assessment

29. Evolution of commitments Global Triptych approach University of Utrecht (Blok, Phylipsen, Groenenberg) Was one basis for the EU burden sharing of the Kyoto targets Originally only energy related CO 2 Mix of convergence and sustainable growth Domestic sectors (Households, services, transport) Converging per-capita emissions Industry (energy intensive) BAU production growth with efficiency improvement Electricity BAU production growth with limit for renewables, CHP, coal and gas National emission target How ? How much? Who?

30. Evolution of commitments Extended global Triptych approach Domestic (CO 2 ) Industry (CO 2 ) Electricity (CO 2 ) National emission target Converging per-capita emissions BAU production growth with efficiency improvement BAU production growth with limit on sources Waste CH 4 and N 2 O Stabilization at 100% Agriculture Converging per-capita emissions to 0% Forestry

31. Evolution of commitments Global Triptych Approach Change in emissions from 1990 to 2020 (CO2, CH4, N2O)

32. Evolution of commitments Triptych approach Results: Significant reductions in Annex I countries, especially EITs (Higher reductions than under convergence) Significant emission growth in developing countries (for some higher growth than under convergence) Differences are less significant, if non-CO 2 gases and other sectors are included Critical factors Assumptions of future production growth Convergence year and level for domestic sectors

33. Evolution of commitments Triptych OriginalExtended Ecological criteria:Energy CO2all GHG Environmental effectiveness: ++++ Encouragement of early action00 Political criteria: Equity principles: Need, responsibility, capability++ Agreement with fundamental positions++ Economic criteria: Accounting for structural differences+++ Minimize adverse economic effects++ Technical criteria: Compatible with Convention and Protocol++ Moderate political and technical requirements-- Assessment

34. Evolution of commitments New multistage approach Four stages: No binding commitments Pledge for sustainable development Moderate reduction below BAU Reduction Threshold for upward movement: emissions per capita Countries can only move upwards As of 2010 movement only to stage 3 then to stage 4 Stage 4: 20% reduction in 10 years Stage 2 is difficult to quantify (here SRES B1) How ? How much? Who?

35. Evolution of commitments New multistage approach Several countries jump directly to stage 3 and 4 (here Venezuela, South Africa, Persian Gulf States, South Korea and Singapore) Only a few countries move upwards from 2020 onwards: Once on the sustainable path, emissions per capita do not rise Critical factors Thresholds Definition of “pledge for sustainable development” Reductions for stage 3/4 Not critical: the Reference scenario, higher emissions lead to higher stage

36. Evolution of commitments New multistage approach Ecological criteria: Environmental effectiveness++ Encouragement of early action+ Political criteria: Equity principles: Need, responsibility, capability++ Agreement with fundamental positions+ Economic criteria: Accounting for structural differences+ Minimize adverse economic effects+ Technical criteria: Compatible with Convention and Protocol+ Moderate political and technical requirements+ Assessment

37. Evolution of commitments Quantitative comparison Under all approaches Significant reductions by Annex I countries Development of emissions of Non- Annex I countries below reference scenario

38. Evolution of commitments Qualitative comparison

39. Evolution of commitments Conclusions Substantial reduction in developed countries are necessary in all approaches, for 450 ppm higher reductions than those in the Kyoto Protocol Early involvement of developing countries is necessary (Need to “get it right the first place”) Many approaches and variations on future action are available –No single one satisfies all requirements –a good mix may be a compromise

40. Evolution of commitments Conclusions II How ? How much? Who? Work from current flexible structure Multistage or menu Several types of targets Types of targets for DCs that limit emissions but not economic growth (e.g. intensity, standards, SD, P&Ms, performance targets, non-binding) OR: Contraction and Convergence Differentiation/allocation of emission targets not solved Possibly Chair’s proposal (based on e.g. convergence or Triptych) modified by negotiations Need for comparable, reviewed, public data on all countries No threshold indicator will suit every country (however recommended: emissions/capita) Self-identification with incentives to be in a certain group

41. Evolution of commitments Recommendations International, informal dialogue(s) –For scientists and policy makers, on scientific basis and possible approaches Trust building –Stress the need for substantial reductions in developed countries as prerequisite (national long-term targets?) –Reduce emissions in developed countries –Actively participate in the CDM –Make available the agreed financial resources –Work with the USA to come back on board –Communicate successes Work towards definition of an interim global target for 2020/2030 –If agreement on 450 or 550 ppm CO 2 is not possible –“At which level of global emissions in 2020 do we loose the option of 450 ppm?” All Parties need to be prepared to evaluate targets – Comparable, reviewed, public data on all countries needed

42. Evolution of commitments Evolution of commitments under the UNFCCC: Involving newly industrialized economies and developing countries By ECOFYS: Dipl. Phys. Niklas Höhne (n.hoehne@ecofys.de) Dr. Jochen Harnisch Dr. Dian Phylipsen Prof. Dr. Kornelis Blok Mw. Carolina Galleguillos On behalf of the German Federal Environmental Agency Research Report 201 41 255 Climate Change 01/03 http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/fpdf-l/2246.pdf