PostKyoto: Reflections on the Institutional Dimension

1
Post-Kyoto Reflections on the Institutional
Dimension

• Dr Charlotte Streck
• Siena 9 June 2006

2
Climate Change Regime Cornerstones

• Take into account intra- and intergenerational
  justice
• Broad contract between societies and people
• Approach must be multi-disciplinary,
  multi-sectoral, international
• Be adequate to the scale of the problem
• Must involve private and public actors
• Climate change policy needs to be based on a
  strong regulatory regime (intl. ntl.)
• Be based multi-sectoral partnerships

3
Post-Kyoto Status Quo

• No agreement yet.
• COP-11 setting of the negotiations framework
• Parties of the UNFCCC will engage in open and
  non-binding exchange of views on future long
  term co-operative action to address climate
  change, including further research and
  development of cleaner technology.
• (Decision title Dialogue on long-term
  cooperative action to address climate change by
  enhancing implementation of the Convention)
• Parties to the KP Decision to initiate
  negotiations of the second commitment period
  without delay. The negotiations will commence on
  May 2006. A decision on the second commitment
  period is to be adopted by the COP/MOP as soon
  as possible. Based on Art. 3.9. (Decision title
  Consideration of commitments for subsequent
  periods for Parties included in Annex I to the
  Convention under Article 3, paragraph 9, of the
  Kyoto Protocol)
• Parties to the KP Expansion in scope of the KP
  under Art. 9 KP could establish a third
  negotiations track

4
Achievements of the KP

• Establishment of a negotiation framework
• Builds on international participation
• Establishment of a system which creates and
  allocates (quasi-) property rights to emissions
• Creation of transferable emission permits
• Involves private sector into treaty compliance
• Creation of institutions and infrastructure
  (registries)
• CDM as Framework for financial, capacity, and
  technology transfer
• Despite significant flaws, it is worth to build
  a post Kyoto regime on the achievements of the
  Protocol

5
Kyoto II needs to move beyond Kyoto I

• Kyoto I
• Does not include the US
• No emission limitation commitments from
  developing countries
• Is limited in scope (does not cover large sources
  of emissions such as aviation or deforestation)
• Does not address adaptation

6
Emission Trading

• Is by now an universally accepted mechanism in
  climate policy. Actors that were opposing the
  concept in Kyoto, have turned into supporters
  (NGOs, EU).
• Will be the mechanism which bears highest chances
  to bring those entities that are currently not
  participating to the table.
• Allows for special solutions acceptable to
  developing countries (or the US)
• Success of CDM and JI are key to create an
  atmosphere of cooperation.

7
Emission Trading after 2012

• Should
• Build on KP mechanisms
• Enlist comprehensive support, allow for different
  compliance mechanisms
• Take into consideration the principle of common
  but differentiated responsibilities
• Needs to move beyond the project-by-project
  approach
• Needs to be linked to a more comprehensive LULUCF
  framework (transfer of sequestration assets)
• Aim at avoiding free-riders
• Trigger technology transfer as well as
  technological change

8
Common but differentiated responsibilities

• The principle of Common but Differentiated
  Responsibilities will have to guide discussions.
• Developing countries will only accept emission
  limitation measures if they are linked of
  mechanisms that ensure financial transfers.
• If carefully designed, ET mechanisms will allow
  to raise the funds ET must be perceived as
  chance, not as a constraint.
• ODA can be used to support the compliance and
  enforcement structures of developing countries.
• Banking of surplus allowances will allow for a
  soft landing for economies in transition.

9
Baselines and Accounting Rules

• Challenge Involve US developing countries into
  an effective GHG mitigation system
• Means
• Combination of elements of a cap-and-trade and
  crediting approach
• US
• allow for LULUCF crediting trading
• allow for full flexibility
• consider as-if Party approaches
• allow for recognition of sub-national schemes and
  efforts
• opt-in of non governmental entities
• Developing countries
• Crediting approach develop sectoral or even
  national baselines
• Recognize existing CDM projects
• Consider GIS-type approaches which help
  triggering investments
• Make eligibility for trading dependent on
  participation criteria
• Participation voluntary for most developing
  countries mandatory for G-20 countries

10
LULUCF post-Kyoto

• Forestry emissions responsible for gt25 of global
  emissions
• LULUCF not fully included in Kyoto
• Key for addressing the problem as well as for
  forging international consensus
• Create incentives for conservation to address the
  problem of deforestation (eg national baselines,
  compensated reductions, carbon stock approach)
• Full credit for sequestration and mitigation
  activities
• Links mitigation with adaptation strategies

11
Adaptation

• Post-Kyoto regime has to include incentives for
  the creation of adaptation measures
• Problem how to finance adaptation
• GEF-approaches are not sufficient
• Like LULUCF, adaptation needs to be linked
  institutionally to mitigation measures in order
  to access the funds available in the energy
  sectors
• Financial transfers from private to private
  necessary
• GIS approaches for adaptation should be developed

12
Questions

• Charlotte Streck
• Climate Focus
• 31 64 64 2 64 81
• C.Streck_at_climatefocus.com