Post-2012 framework issues for CEE countries and Turkey

1. Post-2012 framework issues for CEE countries and Turkey March 2008 Osamu MIZUNO Director of Japan Special Fund

2. Where are we now?- progress of the international efforts for the future framework

3. COP13/CMP3 Bali roadmap 2007 2008 Dec Jan Mar Apr UNFCCC AWGs (Bangkok) OTHERS G20 Dialogue (Japan) MEM (Honolulu) MEM (France) FIRST COMMITMENT PERIOD STARTS!

4. SBs G8summit(Japan) 2008 2009June July Aug Nov Dec June Dec UNFCCC AWGs COP 14/CMP4 (Poland) SBs MEM COP 15/CMP5 (Denmark) THE NEXT FRAMEWORK HAS TO BE AGREED!!! OTHERS MEM US ELECTIONS

5. Bali Road map (COP13 December 2007) Two track approach -by the end of 2009 (COP15/CMP5) • Bali Action Plan (under UNFCCC) - Launch of a comprehensive process for the effective and sustained implementation of the Convention beyond 2012 • AWG-KP (under KP3.9)- the work programme for the further commitments for Annex I Parties • Kyoto protocol review (under KP9)- the scope and content of the second review Start of two years real negotiations for the post Kyoto framework!!

6. Bali Action Plan(1) • Establish AWG-LCA • Key elements for deliberation • A shared vision for long-term cooperative action • Mitigation • Adaptation • Technology transfer and • Finance(the so-called “building blocks” of the BAP) • Reach agreed outcome and adopt a decision at COP15 (2009) • 4 meetings in 2008

7. Bali Action Plan(2) Mitigation addressing: enhanced national/international action on mitigation, including, inter alia, consideration of: • Measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions, including quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives, by all developed country Parties, while ensuring the comparability of efforts among them, taking into account differences in their national circumstances; • Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties in the context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner; Plus; - positive incentives for REDD, sectoral approaches, using market etc.

8. AWG-KP • Focus on a review of the AWG’s work programme, methods of work, and schedule of future sessions • Work programme for fifth and sixth session finalized (work of 2008) • Describe specific level of reduction cited fromAR4 (25 to 40 % below 1990 levels by 2020 as a group) • conclude at CMP5 (2009)

9. Article 9 review • The second review is due at CMP4 (2008) • Focus on scope and content of second review….but big difference in the views among the Parties; developed counties stressed the need of comprehensive review while developing countries focused on the implementation of the Protocol. In the end, agreement had been made in a manner not to specify the topics to be reviewed. • Incorporates the so-called “Russian proposal” • Will also consider:– the idea of an extension of the share of proceeds to JI and ET in order to meet the costs of adaptation;

10. Points to remember • Every element could be changed from the architecture of the KP • Developed countries are going to continue to take the lead and developing countries may also take actions • The next framework will have more balanced focus among mitigation, adaptation, technology and finance • The next framework should be agreed by the end of 2009. Intensive negotiation is expected in the coming two years.

11. Who are we?- the characters of the countries

13. From where shall we start?

14. UNFCCC and KP articles (including decisions and conclusions under CP and CMP) • EU positions

15. UNFCCC and KP articles (including decisions and conclusions under CP and CMP)

16. Commitments of all Parties • National Inventory of GHGs (conv.4.1(a)) • National (regional) programmes for mitigation and adaptation (conv.4.1(b)) • Integration into SD (conv.4.1(f)) • Promotion and cooperation in TT, sinks, adaptation, research, observation, exchange of information, and education (conv.4.1(c,d,e,g,h,i)) • Communication to the COP information related to implementation (conv.4.1(j),12.1) * Commitments of developing countries depend on the commitments of developed countries on financial provision and TT (conv.4.7) * the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change. (conv.3.1)

17. Commitments of Annex I Parties • Binding emission target(KP 3.1/AnnexB) which can be fulfilled as a group (EU-15; KP4) • National PAMs for mitigation (conv.4.2(a)) • More frequent and detailed NC (PAMs, projections, inventory, registry, etc.) (conv.4.2(b), KP7.2) • National system for estimating GHGs (KP5) • National registry(13/CMP.1) • Annual inventory (1/CP.3, KP7.1,7.3) • Common Reporting Format: CRF • National Inventory Report: NIR • Receive Expert Review (KP8)

18. What is the binding emission target? It is not just a number. Its meaning differs a lot depending on….. • Base year • Commitment period • EU bubble • Kyoto mechanism • Banking (from the first commitment period) • Banker (aviation and international maritime transport) • Sink (especially 3.4 and REDD) • CCS For example, (EU 8%, US7%, JP6% )- “sink” =(EU 7.6%, US5.3%, JP2.2% )

19. Commitments of Annex II Parties (Annex I – EIT) • Provide financial resources to DCs (conv.4.3) • Assist vulnerable DCs for adaptation (conv.4.4) • Take all practicable steps to promote TT to other Parties (conv.4.5) • Communication of above (conv.12.3)

20. Especially for EIT(not include SEE countries) • Flexibility (conv.4.6, 9/CP.2, KP3.5) • Choice of the base year • Schedule of communication • Receive TT (conv.4.5 – SEE countries also) • Receive assistance for CB (3/CP.7, 30/CMP.1)Representation (chairs, experts…) • And Opportunities for GIS etc.

21. Especially for non- Annex I developed countries (SEE??) Same level of commitment as DCs But… • No framework for CB under UNFCCC (?)(Marrakesh agreed on two new framework for CB, one for DCs and another for EIT) • Not eligible for financial assistance (conv.4.3) • Not eligible for SCCF, Adaptation Fund (?)(even though the countries could host CDM projects)

22. Points to remember For Annex I Parties • Binding emission target is not just a number • Binding emission target is the central feature but there are many other commitments to fulfill • EU bubble applies only for binding emission target. Even if the countries are the members of EU, they still have a lot of individual obligations • Future of EIT status / possibility of cooperation with non- EU countries has not yet well considered

23. Points to remember For non-Annex I parties • There is a big difference in commitments depending on to which group the countries will belong • Especially for non-Annex I developed countries , if any, their position is very vague in the current regime • There is no such a group defined under UNFCCC and KP as non-Annex I EIT Parties

24. EU positions (for EU Member States and countries which consider the possibility to be associated with them)

25. EU position • Conditional 30% reduction by 2020 compared 1990- other developed countries comparable emission reductions- economically more advanced developed countries to contributing adequately • Unilateral 20% reduction by 2020 compared 1990 • Include enhanced EU-ETS • Binding target of a 20% share of renewable energies by 2020 Adopted by the European Council on 8/9 March 2007

26. EU position(Supported by Croatia, Albania, B&H, FYR Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey) • Building blocks for post 2012 framework • Peak within the next 10-15 years and at least 50% below 1990 by 2050 (In order for the 2 ºC objective) • Deeper emission reduction for developed countries(as a group, order of 30{25-40}% by 2020, 60-80% by 2050) • Expanding the carbon market • Enhancing efforts for adaptation • Address banker issues (aviation and maritime transport) • {Address additional GHGs} ….But no clear message for EIT status, including the potential for GIS Adopted by the (Environment) Council on 30 October 2007 Enhanced in the submissions to UNFCCC in March 2008{ }

27. Ideas of the Commission to fulfill 20 20 commitment • An enhanced EU- ETS (-21% from 2005) • Expand scope (gas ,sector) • Auctioning or free allocation through single EU-wide rules (replace NAP) • Emission reduction from the non-ETS sectors • Country specific target (based on GDP per-capita) • The overall cost is about 0.5%of GDP in 2020 From “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, Council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the region,” and “proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the council” 23.1.2008)

28. From “the Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment” 23.1.2008)

29. From “the Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment” 23.1.2008)

30. Points to remember Two different questions we have to ask…. • “20 20” is a precondition for EU countries.Hence the question should be “how should we distribute the level of efforts to achieve this objectives (target and structure)?” • Commitments beyond 20 20 must be agreed as a result of intentional negotiation.Hence the question should be “what should be achieved in the international negotiations on the post 2012 framework (ideal and bottom line)?” • Ideal; How to distribute the level of efforts to achieve EU proposal (target and structure)? • Bottom line; Level of emission reduction target,structure of emission reduction and other commitments

31. Turkey’s position • Turkey is a developing country • To be deleted from Annex I • To be able to host CDM • Re-classification of countries on the basis of development levels • All countries should be allowed to determine their base year • Developing countries can prepare “national Mitigation Actions” for carbon intense sectors • Establish comprehensive incentive mechanisms The submission to UNFCCC in March 2008

32. Other country’s position(1) • USA • At Bali, proposed “pledge and review” type frame • After Bali, • Environmentally effective, economically sustainable, further SD • Attractive, simple, practical, creative • Identification of a long-term global goal • Meaningful contributions from countries with a significant emissions profile will be critical • Support sectoral approaches

33. Other country’s position(2) • Japan • proposed the “Cool Earth 50” initiative, calling for a halving of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 • peak out global emission within the next 10 to 20 years • everyone participates, including, inter alia, all major emitters • the setting of fair and equitable emissions target. • Japan will, along with other major emitters, set a quantified national target • bottom-up approach by compiling on sectoral basis

34. Other country’s position(3) • G77+ China • No formal position yet after Bali • China • The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities shall be key • USA shall undertake commitments to reduce their GHG emissions by at least 25-40% of their 1990 level by 2020 • Mitigation actions by developing countries shall be nationally determined in accordance with • their sustainable development strategies and country specific circumstances;

35. Summary

36. The future framework can be any type of architecture (unlikely to be a simple extension of KP) • The distance from EU positions (two different questions to make) • Clear vision on which group of the countries the one (want to) belong to. • Balance among mitigation, adaptation, technology and finance • Emission reduction target is not just a number • Commitment is not just about emission reduction • Commitment as a group of countries and a individual country

37. The final point to make… Some may say, “well, the future framework is a important issue… but it is a issue for big countries. Countries with limited (financial and human) resources cannot do anything……” But…. • AOSIS, – deep reduction by all big countries, adaptation • LDC, Kenya (COP12) – adaptation, integration with SD • OPEC― response measures • Indonesia(COP13)/PNG – deforestation They are not necessarily big and rich. But they have had strong voices. Their concerns and interests have been well reflected in the progress of international negotiations.

38. Thank you