UNFCCC Bangkok Intercessionals 2011 - Day 1

Workshop on Developed Country Targets

3 April 2011, Morning, UNESCAP, Bangkok, Thailand

Christiana Figueres

·        Sympathized with the tragedies which struck Japan and also Thailand

·        Provided a summary and recommendations out of the Cancun decisions such as the submission of mitigation commitments of the parties, the conduct of the workshops and the writing of  technical paper by June 2011.

·        This workshop is not a stand-alone but a first of a series of workshops

·        Encouraged continued input on how these workshops are to go forward:

o       Do you think it would be useful to invite experts and others who could give other analyses?

o       Would it be useful to organize the workshops according to cross-cutting issues?

o       How would you assess the participation of observer parties?

o       How do we ensure the relationship of this workshop with the technical paper?

o       How often would these workshops be?

·        Thanked the co-facilitators

Brazil/ G77

·         Suggested that a written report be done by the co-facilitators to be presented to the LCA and the SBI. The co-facilitator could highlight the ideas out of the written report.

Workshop Proper

Set 1 of Presentations

European Union

·         “EU will meet its Kyoto target”

·         16 % below 1990

·         EU GDP grew by 40 %

·         Policy implementation drives mitigation

·         EU ETS covers 40% of EU emissions reduction, also the main driver of international carbon markets (80%)

·         EU ETS has concrete influence on investments made

·         EU pledge for 2020 – 20-30% emissions reduction

·         Legislation in 2009 is set to meet a 20% emission reduction

·         Clearer standard for CDM

·         Annual compliance cycle in the emissions trading sectors

·         Taken into account the implications of biofuels

·         Tried to define common but differentiated responsibilities among its 27 members – 5,000 Euros – 40,000 Euros GDP  per capita gap as a criteria (between -20 and +20)

·         National renewable energy targets

·         Respect mixes of energy choices of members

·          – how much you will have to add given your GDP capacity

·         Legislation framework in place for 2020, with a focus on implementation

·         The broader context – low emission related strategies until 2050

·         Started a discussion document called “2050 Roadmap”

·         “We are not going to achieve that be de-industrializing the European Union” instead expects GDP to double while achieving targets on time

·         Need to invest 270 billion Euros from 2010 – 2050

·         Primary energy consumption to decline by 30% below 2005

·         Stay below 2 degrees C – through the leadership of developed countries  which must close their “ambitious gap.” 

·         “Market based contexts are key to close this ambition gap”

·         “Accounting is key”  through rules, “robust comparable reporting”/ MRV,  rules governing land use and forestry,  banking rules –

·         Ensure that “a tonne is a tonne”

·         Giving predictability to investments --- “they are no longer looking at 2020, but 2030, 2050…”

·         Next steps: Use workshops to undertand pledges, inform our discussions, assess scale of gap to 2 degrees Celsuis and explore ways to increase ambition, and robust, rigourous and consistent accounting rules

G77 and China

·         The presentation was meant to express uncertainties and aimed at obtaining clarity over the targets of developed countries, thus it presented certain assumptions and conditions:

·         Conversion of pledges to QELROs (base year, start year for the commitment period, etc)

o        KP is essential

·         Modalities for measurement of emissions and removals

·         Consideration of LULUCF

·         Nature and use of offsets (some of these are presented as international instruments, not just an issue about clarity but equity, what is the domestic effort of countries within their pledge otherwise we would see a situation where developing countries would take on more significant mitigation which poses a question of equity)

·         Consideration of supplementarity (need for clarity on domestic effort)

·         Comparability and ambition work hand in hand

·         KP is the reference for comparability and ambition – “otherwise we will see a watering down of ambitions”

·         Pledges are not sufficient for 2 degrees Celsuis

·         What will be the aggregate midterm mitigation contribution to Annex 1 parties?

·         How will compliance be ensured?

Norway

·         Need for common rules for accounting, provide predictability for the carbon market

·         2/3 of emissions reduction by 2020 will be done domestically

·         Targets to become carbon neutral by 2030, based on a parliamentary agreement back in 2008

·         From 1990 to 2009, GDP increased by 30%

·         Last two years, emissions declined by 2%

·         Use of flexible mechanisms – market based mechanisms will facilitate cost-effective emissions reduction, provides opportunities for international financing.

·         LULUCF – accounting should be comprehensive, accounting rules under the LCA must be comparable with those of the KP

·         Estimated removal in Norway for 2020 is 3 million tones, corresponding to 6 per cent of 1990 emissions

·         Intends to revise its commitments in accordance with rule changes, with the aim of keeping the overall high ambition level unchanged.

·         Has a long history of developing instruments which ”keep its emissions stable.”

·         Set to poduce a white paper

United States

·         Targets emissions reduction by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, in anticipation of an enegery and climate legislation

·         Scope:  an economy-wide target

·         The target is in “accordance to international standards”

·         Energy comprise 86.7% of its emissions and 83.2% of CO2

·         Clean energy funding : US$ 92 billion – Energy – 29, renewable energy generation – 21, high-speed rail and traditional transit - 21

·         Policies and Measures: Issued car and light truck GHG standards equivalent to 35.5mpg by 2016, goal of 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015, expanded the clean air act, plans to propose GHG emission standards for utility boilers and refineries, proposed 80% of electricity come from clean sources by 2035, using conservation programs to store carbon on croplands and turn degraded lands into grasses and trees

·         LULUCF: To create incentives to reduce net emissions from all sectors which have mitigation potentials; Considering  climate impacts and natural disturbances, baseline approaches and uncertainties in LULUCF data; Looking closely at its own inventory and modeling capabilities

·         Emissions Trading and Offsets: no federal law on emissions trading though some states allow credit towards emissions for allowances/ reductions secured abroad

·         Presented 4 charts showing the emissions reduction of US in relation to Japan, Australia and EU, with different base years: “The US (emissions reduction)  is comparable in the range of where other countries are”

France

·         23% renewable target by 2020

·         Emissions per capita is low, de-carbonized industries due to “nuclear, large hydro”

·         Within the target of the EU, through a 2005 law, France committed to reduce its emissions by a factor of 4 by 2050

·         Grenelle Environment Forum – a national consultative process started in 2007 and whose results evolved into laws in 2009 and 2010 – recommended a measures on building, transport and energy sectors, establishment of monitoring committee; and massive investments towards a green economy

·         Since Grenelle, rnergy consumption is to be reduced by 38% and GHG emissions by -50% by 2020 compared to 2005

·         On transport, reduce GHG emissions by 20% by 2020 (return to 1990 levels)

·         Role of regional and local authorities – development of local climate and energy plans

Set 1 of Questions:

Egypt – How much does international aviation account in EU’s reduction? Do we have a common understanding of a global agreement, are they satisfactory? On US, the IPCC number s are more related to 1990 (rather than 2005). On France and Norway, the more an economy is growing, the more countries can reduce --- it is not easy to do this unless one reaches a certain level of development.

South Korea – On the US, when will a national legislation likely to be developed and passed? What are the criteria for comparability? On Norway, 2/3 of emissions will be done domestically, how about in the EU?

Pakistan – On US, can he elaborate the critical elements in comparability? What elements of compliance mechanisms are needed to keep the 2 degrees Celsius commitment?

Solomon Islands – It will be useful to have a global format in reporting mitigation efforts and targets.

Philippines –On  EU, we do have the impression that EU can meet its targets, does it make sense to make 30% an unconditional target? On US, how much of a factor is the global recession in the decline of its emissions? 

China – On US, In your definition, what is “fair share”? What is your view in having KP as a reference. What is the nature of the 17% emissions reduction target? “Even with  the recent legislation, those numbers only account for certain sectors.”

Set 1 of Responses

US

·         On ambition, it is extremely difficult to say what one should do in just a matter of years. The issue for us to how do we start in modest actions. In my mind, the decisions reached in Cancun is the start

·         On dates of legislation, there will be several legislations --- combination of legislations and regulatory programs which will help bind US and provide incentives

·         In my mind, I do not believe in having a single metric. 1990 does not work for us.

·         Bali does not refer to metrics, the notion of efforts is not defined, based on national circumstances.

·         On compliance, it is a matter of domestic law, which is strong

·         On pledges, that will be the next step of the process

·         On mitigation rate and impact of the recession, we are substantially up since 2005. The question is are we on the right track. What we have are commitments in Copenhagen and Cancun.

·         We will stay with our 17%

·         On the scope, we are looking to all sectors, all gases, all sinks.

EU

·         On comparability, a matter of political judgment

·         On KP, I sometimes call this a simplistic way. If we look back to history, that did not work because the US walked away.

·         On compliance, the starting point for the EU, is what is in the KP but in a wider context.

·         On the international aviation and it part in the emissions reduction, 1-2%

·         On supplementarity, 66% domestic, 30% at most from international credits

·         On achievement of targets, that is true if all legislation is to push through.

·         On whether the efforts of Annex 1 countries are sufficient, some are based on energy efficiency improvement, cover only some sectors. These are outstanding issues --- where do we stand to stay below 2 degrees Celsius

Norway

·         What would be need for Norway to raise our targets from 30% to 40%, we need clarity on the pledges. We need to see the whole picture. We are very eager to know the accounting rules.

·         If No

Set 2 of Questions:

EU - Supports G77/China in asking for a report. There is a lot of convergence – the need for  standard format and accounting rules. For Norway, if it is to put up its target from 30%-40%, how much of the increment will be comprised by domestic measures and LULUCF. On the US, what room do you see on international  accounting? What rules would the US like to follow in relation to KP?

Switzerland – Agrees with EU and G77/China in moving from diversity to comparability. On the last slide of the US, what figures should be compared and how should these be compared? The EU showed he cost of mitigation measures and benefits, does the US have similar measures? What are the potential demands of the US on international credits?

Argentina – On EU’s efforts, how do these efforts take into account equity and common but differentiated responsibility? Elaborate more on efforts related to maritime transport.

Tuvalu – For the US, 17% gravely inadequate for a country with the highest emissions in the world, how does he expect the US to ramp up the emissions reduction once legislations are done. How the EU anticipates addressing those issues?

Ethiopia -  For US and EU, I don’t understand how we are going to say whether we are complying to the agreements reached and find out where we are.

Set 2 of Responses

Norway

·         These issues will be clarified soon. LULUCF would not change targets considerably unless rules are clearer.

US

·         On share on international actions, the answer is zero because there is no legislation

·         On rule-making structure based on the KP, we are currently using the IPCC inventories

·         On the cost of mitigation and benefits, we don’t have that kind of information.

·         On the 17 per cent, this is where we are now.

·         On comparability in relation to compliance, we have not had the conversation following Cancun. We can better compare and assess, once a global deal is set.

·         The issue of comparability is different from the issue of adequacy. In my mind, I am not persuaded to have a single metric in advancing domestic actions.

EU

·        We need more criteria in looking at comparability. But in terms of adequacy, we need to look at the tones.

·        The issues of accounting on international aviation, there is no discrimination. However exceptions are made for carriers with limited flights to Europe.

·        In terms of revenues, there is a stream of money that will come back to developing countries.

G77/ China

·         The possibility of KP improvement, there is space. But there is a need  to create a solid and top-down basis of comparability.

Set 2 of Presentations

Switzerland

·         Pledged between -20% and -30% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels

·         30% if other developed countries commit to comparable reductions and developing countries contribute adequately according to their responsibility and respective capabilities.

·         Still under parliamentary debate: 2/3 domestic reductions, an increase in the reduction target from 20% - 30% involves an increase in the use of offsets mechanism; quality criteria for offset certificates.

·         Will not carry over AAU from the previous commitment period.

·         Banking on units from the flexible mechanisms by private investors

·         On LULUCF: net yearly emissions could range from 0 to 3.97 Mt Co2 eq.  0 is more likely

·         International bunker fuels are included in the Swiss proposal

AOSIS

·         1 meter of sea level rise by 2100 likely

·         Cancun Agreement pledges are not sufficient, the cost of closing the gigatonne gap is at ca 0.4% of GDP in 2020

·         Annex 1 pledges only deliver 1-7% reduction from 1990: 6% reduction is close to zero cost; annex 1 need further 2-3GtCO2e/ year reductions by 2020

·         20-40% reductions cost ca 0.1-1.5% of Annex 1 GDP in 2020

·         The problem in essence is political will and lack of ambition.

·         The technical paper has to clarify individual quantification in tCo2 eq of emissions reduction in 20202 compared to 1990; aggregate quantification of effective emissions reductions compared to 2 / 1.5 degrees Celsius, conditions attached to pledges, among others

·         There is a need for a work program now where possible inputs include mitigation potential, possible means to reach reduction targets, financial flows, modalities, outcomes particularly global mitigation potential, agreement on new mechanisms that generate net global reductions.

New Zealand

·        Current emissions account to 0.2% of global emissions, half of these coming from agriculture

·        Population is growing by 25% since 1990

·        NZ Emissions Trading Scheme – is already having an effect on business behavior.

·        On forestry, there has been increased planting

·        Participating in the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Emissions

·        On legal form, 2020 Target – 10 to 20% below 1990 by 2020 on condition that there is global agreement on 2 degrees Celsius, comparable effort from developed countries, advanced and major emitting developing countries take action in line with their capability, full recourse to broad and efficient markets and effective set of rules for LULUCF. 

·        Incentivize forest planting and carbon stocks.

·        Next steps: Political guidance from cancun agreements, mitigation pledges from Annex 1 and NAMAs form non-Annex 1. Continued momentum on agreed rules, flexibility and confidence.

Germany

·         Has an unconditional 40% reduction target below 1990

·         30% EU-wide reduction in GHGs by 2020 means- 40%  for Germany

·         The energy sector is key

·         A legally binding frame gives a clear perspective for industries and constituencies

·         Financing is key hence it has implemented funding schemes

·         Feed in tariffs - Incentives for developing “green” technologies

·         Information, Monitoring on implementation

·         Share of renewables especially wind in electricity 35% and 18% of energy by 2020

·         Implemented a monitoring system as to whether or not they are on track

“Burning questions”

Philippines – For New Zealand, how do you define “fair share”

US - For AOSIS, what kind of ranges have you considered in assessing the reductions which need to be made? The US does not use assumptions. We need to solicit inputs, the US has not been a party to the assessments that you are doing.

Europe – The point of the workshop is to collect and discuss the figures available.

Response

New Zealand – Comparable with developed countries and advanced developing countries

AOSIS – Any level of sea level rise is an important concern. We need to have a precautionary approach under the Convention. Will share the studies later. As to cost, will provide citations as well.

Switzerland – The ranges are consistent with the IPCC findings.