University of the Philippines School of Urban and Regional Planning

International Policies on Climate Change Reports from Copenhagen Convention

In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements in Panning 289 Special Problems in Environmental Planning Second Semester, School Year 2009- 2010

Submitted by: Michelle Paunlagui .

Submitted to: Dean Candido A. Cabrido Jr.

March 2010

REPORT OUTLINE

I.

Historical Background A. Kyoto Protocol B. Bali Road Map

II.

Copenhagen Convention A. Objectives B. Rationale C. Outcome: The Copenhagen Accord D. Assessment: The Copenhagen Accord E. Outcomes of Pledges

III. IV. V.

Conclusion References Annex

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: Climate change is considered one of the most crucial challenges of todays generation. This phenomenon transcends national and political boundaries and does not exempt anyone from the harm it brings. As such, international cooperation is needed to appropriately and intelligently respond to it. In 1992, the first international treaty on Climate Change was formed: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) during the environmental summit in Rio De Janeiro. The UNFCCC, which is composed of at least 172 governments, provided an organizational structure to advance research on the issue and to instigate action plan to address climate change. In 1997, this treaty made possible the signing of the first international legally binding agreement Box I Flexible Mechanisms under Kyoto Protocol aimed to combat climate Emission Trading change: the Kyoto Protocol, Emission trading is also referred to as carbon trading because CO2 is the which by ratified in 2005 primary GHG that is being traded. Within this so called carbon market, the (UNFCCC, 2009) emission trading mechanism is designed to provide flexibility to countries Kyoto Protocol that have to meet emission targets. One type of emissions trading is the sale
or purchase of emission units; a country over its targets can purchase surplus GHG emission units that other countries have to spare. Another type of emission trading is carbon offsetting. One example of offsetting is reforestation. As part of the growing process, plants consume carbon dioxide (CO2); growing forests are net CO2 sinks - they generally absorb more CO2 than they give off. Therefore, by planting forests, a country can reduce its net CO2 because the trees will reabsorb some of the gas produced by human activity. Clean Development Mechanism The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allows a developed state to earn carbon credits to help with meeting its emission targets if it carries out or promotes projects in a developing state. These projects, which are introduced in the form of foreign direct investment, generally include the construction of environment-friendly energy plants and may include setting up solar panels, installing energy-efficient boilers, etc. This mechanism is designed to benefit both developed and developing countries; developed states can carry out their obligations in a flexible and sometimes more economical way, meanwhile also stimulating sustainable development in developing states. Joint Implementation The Joint Implementation (JI) system is similar to CDM. However, JI projects are carried out by a developed country in another developed country. Through these projects one developed country helps another reduce its GHG emissions. These projects take various forms; one example is the replacement of a coal-fired power plant with a more energy-efficient cogeneration plant.10 JI projects help the countries carrying out the projects to meet their emission targets flexibly and cost-efficiently while host countries benefit from increased foreign investment and technology transfer.

The definitive feature of the Kyoto Protocol is on setting the targets for reducing carbon emissions for 37 industrialized countries and the European community. Under this agreement each developed state (referred as Annex I Parties) has a specific amount of GHG emission to reduce from 2008-2012 through the mechanisms created by the protocol. Some of the flexible mechanisms provided for by Kyoto are emission trading, clean development mechanism and joint implementation. (See Box 1 for discussion.) These mechanisms aim to help countries with Kyoto commitments to meet their targets by reducing emissions or removing 3

carbon from the atmosphere in other countries in a cost-effective way and encourage the private sector and developing countries to contribute to emission reduction efforts. Outcomes and Challenges of Kyoto Protocol: The Kyoto Protocol reduced global carbon emission to five (5%) percent below 1990 levels and raised global awareness regarding climate change. It has also cascaded responsibility for energy conservation among the private sector companies and paved the way towards strengthening international cooperation for environmental projects and research. However, as the Scientific research hardens and solidified, the Protocol has met few criticisms. One of which is on the targets itself. Many environmentalists and scientists argue that some countries have committed very low reduction targets making their commitment almost meaningless. Also, many argued that the mechanisms provided for by the agreement are not sufficient to bring in the desired results. Perhaps, the biggest criticism of the Protocol is on participation. In the absence of scientific consensus and in the tedious process of establishing the specific terms of the Protocol, emissions by worlds largest GHG emitters were not fully addressed. The U.S., the largest emitter of CO2, has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol; China which ranked 3rd in terms of carbon emission as developing nations do not face any emission targets. The same goes for India, which ranked 5th. (Amadore, 2005) The issue of participation gives birth to another problem: carbon leakage. Carbon leakage is the increase in greenhouse gas emissions in countries without emissions commitments that arises from reductions in emission-constrained nations. (IPCC) Countries with emission may simply move carbonintensive operations to developing countries where they are not constrained by emission targets. This way developed countries meet their carbon targets with ease but without much sacrifice on their part. In effect, the net benefit to the environment as a whole is very minimal. Bali Roadmap In December 2008 during the climate change forum in Bali, member countries of UNFCCC unanimously agreed that efforts to address climate change should go beyond the commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Thus, they have adopted the Bali Roadmap, which aims to come up with a successor agreement to Kyoto Protocol by the end of 2009 during the conference in Copenhagen. (UNFCCC, 2009)

COPENHAGEN CONVENTION:
Objectives: The Copenhagen Convention aims to come up with a legally binding treaty anchored on long-term cooperation to mitigate and adapt to climate change through stabilizing greenhouse gases. Specifically, the Convention aims to gather commitments from all counties involved carbon reduction targets, which in sum, will only allow up to 2C global temperature increase. Rationale: Strong scientific consensus that any human-induced warming greater than two degrees Celsius (2C) above pre-industrial levels would have a dangerous and highly damaging impact on both human societies and their economies and the global environment as a whole. (WWF, 2009) Current carbon emission levels allows up to 4C temperature increase globally. At 3C raised level, the Arctic ice will disappear along with polar bears and walruses, the Amazon forest will catch irreversible damages leading to its collapse, and coral reef system will be destroyed. Most regions from all around the globe will be unsuitable for food production, exposing at least 5.5 billion to hunger. (Amadore, 2009) Sea level rise will wiped out several islands, leaving millions of people homeless or even country-less. Given all these, the need to come up with a global target of carbon emission reduction which will allow only a maximum increase of 2C in the global temperature is imperative. Outcomes: Due to qualms and political disparity from various key player-economies, the Convention did not produce any legally binding agreement which will succeed Kyoto Protocol. Rather, it came up with a political document called the Copenhagen Accord (refer to Annex A) with its key provisions summarized below: 1. Identification of principle. The signatories adopted the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities The signatories concur that deep cuts in global emissions are required to hold global temperature increases to 2C, and commit to take actions to meet this objective, consistent with science and on the basis of equity. 2. Action and cooperation on adaptation among developed and developing countries. The accord recognizes the need to strengthen cooperation to implement adaptation measures particularly in the most vulnerable areas like least developed countries, small island developing states, and Africa. To finance adaptation measures, developed countries commit to provide financial resources to support adaptation measures in these areas. 3. Adoption of Kyoto Protocol classification of economies/countries. The Accord adopts the classification of economies/countries under the Kyoto Protocol. Annex I Parties of the Kyoto Protocol which comprises of the 1997 list of the industrialized countries and the emerging market economies of Central and Eastern Europe commit to implement mitigation actions through their target reduction of CO2 emission (specified in Appendix I), and Non-Annex I Parties which comprise of the developing 5

world, as defined in the Kyoto Protocol also commit to implement mitigation actions (specified in Appendix II) all of which will be submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat by January 31, 2010. 4. Difference in reporting of emission reductions between developed and developing countries. Emissions reductions for the Annex I parties will be measured, reported, and verified according to guidelines (to be established), which will be rigorous and transparent, whereas mitigation actions taken by non-Annex I parties will be subject to domestic measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) reported through national communications, with international consultation and analysis. 5. Financial Support for actions taken by Least Developed Countries. Least developed countries and small island developing states may undertake actions voluntarily and on the basis of support (from other countries). Such actions will be subject to international measurement, reporting, and verification. 6. Incentives for re-forestation projects. The parties recognize the crucial roles of forests in reducing emissions and will establish positive incentives to re-forestation projects. 7. Different approaches for mitigation actions. The parties agree to pursue opportunities to use markets to achieve cost-effective mitigation actions. 8. Immediate Funding Commitments There is a collective commitment from developed countries approaching $30 billion for the period 2010-2012, balanced between adaptation and mitigation, with adaptation funding being prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries. 9. Annual Appropriations. The developed countries commit to a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020 from sources both public and private. 10. Schedule for Evaluation. Evaluation of the Accords implementation is to be completed by 2015, including consideration of strengthening the long-term goal as the science indicates. ASSESSMENT of the ACCORD: Strengths: The Accord notes the importance of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, which is of great importance to developing countries. This will give the developing countries a more relaxed environment for their reduction targets allowing them to concentrate on social and economic development and poverty eradication for the time being and to adopt a low-emission development strategy in the long run. The Accord also highlights the importance of adaptation and apportions financial resources to support adaptation measures in least developed countries. Providing financial assistance and annual appropriations for mitigation measures implemented by developing countries encourage low-emission development strategy for them. In addition, the Accord also recognizes the crucial role of the forest eco-system in attaining reduction targets. This is a significant deficiency of the Kyoto Protocol and a crucial add-on in an international cooperation to combat climate change. Incentives on reforestation efforts will attract many investors and will eventually pave the way for public to realize the economic cost and benefits of such an ecosystem. 6

Weaknesses: The Accord only produced a political document and as such, is not legally binding and its implementation is prone to be influenced by political forces at play. In the end, the Accord will only produce pledges and not real commitments from its signatories. In addition, while the Accord notes the importance of the frequently-discussed 2C target, it did not spell out actions that will achieve it nor did it set out uniform parameters for the pledges (e.g. base year of emission targets) The Accord maintained the distinction of Annex I versus non-Annex I countries from the Kyoto Protocol. This may not be sound as more than 60 non-Annex I countries now have greater per capita income than the poorest of the Annex I countries. Appendix I of the Accord will contain the pledges from Annex I Parties which specifies only the targeted reduction and the year in which reductions will be based. Earlier version released by Wall Street also includes the financial commitments of each country. This may have been preferable to approximate initial funds for such undertakings.

OUTCOMES OF PLEDGES: Existing pledges by Annex I Parties account for 12-19% reduction of emissions below 1990 level. This is a far cry from the needed 30 to 40% reductions to keep temperature increase below 2 C. In the absence of legally binding international arrangement of reductions, most of the developed countries will stick to its low pledges, which translates into a reduction of only 12% below 1990 level. TABLE I: QUANTIFIED ECONOMY-WIDE EMMISSIONS It can be noted that Canada and the U.S. TARGETS FOR 2020 use 2005 as the base year for their reductions, which translates into no real Country Carbon Emission Base Year reduction from the 1990 levels, but only a Reductions in curve from its 2020 Business-As-Usual 2020 (BAU) level. Thus in US 17% 2005 17% 2005 Russia on the hand will have an increased CANADA emission even if it meets its targets. This JAPAN 25% 1990 is because Russias gross emissions in EU 30% 1990 2005 were roughly one-third below their NORWAY 30%-40% 1990 1990 level. Therefore, its 2020 goal NEW ZEALAND 10%-20% 1990 actually results in an increase in gross RUSSIAN FEDERATION 15%-25% 1990 emissions of 18% to 33% above the 2005 KAZAKHSTAN 15% 1992 level. MONACO 30% 1990 Submissions from Non-Annex I Parties, on AUSTRALIA 5% - 25% 2000 the other hand accounts for 6% - 17% BELARUS 5%-10% 1990 reduction from 2020 BAU baseline or 6% 30% 1990 17% emission avoidance through their ICELAND 30%-40% 1990 national action on mitigation and NORWAY adaptation (NAMAs.) or a 6-17% Emission CROATIA 5% 1990 avoidance can be defined as deceleration of expected future emissions and/or a decrease in a BAU level. With most future emissions coming from developing countries, it is not surprising that global emissions would still continue to grow. Increasing GHG emissions from developing countries would more than offset emission cuts from developed countries. Realization of the pledges, however, is still crucial as it would reduce the rate that the emissions will increase such that by 2020, both emissions would be about 7% to 12% below BAU level. CONCLUSION: The Copenhagen Accord while not legally binding could well turn out to be a viable foundation for a Portfolio of Domestic Commitment. This has the potential to bridge a longer-term arrangement among the countries of the world. And like any other potential, the chances of its realization are in hands of those who crafted it.

References: Amador, Leonicio, Green Peace: Climate Change, Crisis or Opportunity, Quezon City, 2009. Copenhagen Accord Official document accessed at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf on Feb. 8, 2010. Copenhagen Accord: A Preliminary Assessment accessed at http://www.grist.org/article/2009-12-20-apreliminary-assessment-of-the-copenhagen-accord on Feb. 9, 2010 Copenhagen Accord by the Numbers, Institute of 21st Century Energy, U.S Chamber of Commerce, 2010 Copenhagen Convention on Climate Change: UNA-GB Model UN Topic Guide accessed at http://www.unagb.org/pdf/Regional%2009/UNFCCC.pdf on Feb. 9, 2010 Earth Hour Official Presentation, DOE Philippines 2010 Lowel, Jeremy, Winds of Change, Institutional Investor, August 2009.

Annex A: CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES Fifteenth session Copenhagen, 7.18 December 2009 Agenda item 9 High-level segment Draft decision -/CP.15 Proposal by the President Copenhagen Accord The Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers, and other heads of delegation present at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen,
In pursuit of the ultimate objective of the Convention as stated in its Article 2, Being guided by the principles and provisions of the Convention, Noting the results of work done by the two Ad hoc Working Groups, Endorsing decision x/CP.15 on the Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action and decision x/CMP.5 that requests the Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments of Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol to continue its work, Have agreed on this Copenhagen Accord which is operational immediately.

1. We underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We emphasize our strong political will to urgently combat climate change in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. To achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention to stabilize greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, we shall, recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius, on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development, enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate change. We recognize the critical impacts of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures on countries particularly vulnerable to its adverse effects and stress the need to establish a comprehensive adaptation programme including international support. 2. We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and as documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity. We should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries and bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries and that a low-emission development strategy is indispensable to sustainable development. 3. Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures is a challenge faced by all countries. Enhanced action and international cooperation on adaptation is urgently required to ensure the implementation of the Convention by enabling and supporting the implementation of adaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in developing countries, especially in those that are particularly vulnerable, especially least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. We agree that developed countries shall provide 10

adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries.

4. Annex I Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted in the format given in Appendix I by Annex I Parties to the secretariat by 31 January 2010 for compilation in an INF document. Annex I Parties that are Party to the Kyoto Protocol will thereby further strengthen the emissions reductions initiated by the Kyoto Protocol. Delivery of reductions and financing by developed countries will be measured, reported and verified in accordance with existing and any further guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties, and will ensure that accounting of such targets and finance is rigorous, robust and transparent. 5. Non-Annex I Parties to the Convention will implement mitigation actions, including those to be submitted to the secretariat by non-Annex I Parties in the format given in Appendix II by 31 January 2010, for compilation in an INF document, consistent with Article 4.1 and Article 4.7 and in the context of sustainable development. Least developed countries and small island developing States may undertake actions voluntarily and on the basis of support. Mitigation actions subsequently taken and envisaged by Non-Annex I Parties, including national inventory reports, shall be communicated through national communications consistent with Article 12.1(b) every two years on the basis of guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties. Those mitigation actions in national communications or otherwise communicated to the Secretariat will be added to the list in appendix II. Mitigation actions taken by Non-Annex I Parties will be subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification the result of which will be reported through their national communications every two years. Non-Annex I Parties will communicate information on the implementation of their actions through National Communications, with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions seeking international support will be recorded in a registry along with relevant technology, finance and capacity building support. Those actions supported will be added to the list in appendix II. These supported nationally appropriate mitigation actions will be subject to international measurement, reporting and verification in accordance with guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties. 6. We recognize the crucial role of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation and the need to enhance removals of greenhouse gas emission by forests and agree on the need to provide positive incentives to such actions through the immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD-plus, to enable the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries. 7. We decide to pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets, to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote mitigation actions. Developing countries, especially those with low emitting economies should be provided incentives to continue to develop on a low emission pathway. 8. Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding as well as improved access shall be provided to developing countries, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, to enable and support enhanced action on mitigation, including substantial finance to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD-plus), adaptation, technology development and transfer and capacity-building, for enhanced implementation of the Convention. The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 to 2012 11

with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation. Funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance. New multilateral funding for adaptation will be delivered through effective and efficient fund arrangements, with a governance structure providing for equal representation of developed and developing countries. A significant portion of such funding should flow through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund. 9. To this end, a High Level Panel will be established under the guidance of and accountable to the Conference of the Parties to study the contribution of the potential sources of revenue, including alternative sources of finance, towards meeting this goal. 10. We decide that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund shall be established as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support projects, programme, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation including REDD-plus, adaptation, capacity building, technology development and transfer. 11. In order to enhance action on development and transfer of technology we decide to establish a Technology Mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and mitigation that will be guided by a country-driven approach and be based on national circumstances and priorities. 12. We call for an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by 2015, including in light of the Conventions ultimate objective. This would include consideration of strengthening the long-term goal referencing various matters presented by the science, including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius.

12