Institutions II: International Climate Negotiations • Evolution of Kyoto “architecture” – How might it have gone better? – Why the big national differences? • What current parties are doing • What path(s) to an international regime? Course Organization 2/12 Institutions 2/19 Natural Science Background/economics 2/26 3/5 Background/science Social Science/policy 3/12 Integration 3/19 3/26 Holiday 4/2 4/9 4/16 4/23 4/30 5/7 5/14 Background/uncertainty UN General Assembly Framework Convention on Climate Change Fragmentation of the Regime U.S. COP Conference of Parties MOP Kyoto Ä Tighten, Add LDCs Protocol Treaty Bureaucracy Ratif’n by 55% Legal Force The Evolution: 1992 in Rio • Negotiations within the U.N. system – In the context of UNCED in 1992 • National targets and timetables – Concept: national quantity targets – “Aim” to return to 1990 by 2000 – “Grandfathered” emissions at national level • “Common but differentiated responsibilities” – Annex I vs. Non-Annex I Q: What alternatives were available? The Evolution: COP-1 in Berlin • Mandated that negotiators agree to – Emissions targets for 2005, 2010, 2020 – Common “policies and measures” • No discussion allowed of Non-Annex I emissions commitments • Protocol to be prepared for agreement by COP-3, in Kyoto in 1997 Q: Were mistakes made here? The Evolution: 1997 in Kyoto • Agreed – Fixed quantity targets for 2008-2012, unrelated to growth – Commitments for Annex B nations only – Flexibility mechanisms & ”new effort” sinks • Not agreed – Restrictions on buying reductions abroad – “Do nothing” sinks – Compliance penalties Q: What outcomes would have been better? Final Protocol Steps • Kyoto ¼ COP-6 (11/00): collapse on details • Bush rejects Kyoto (3/01), quits negotiations • Agreement in Bonn (7/01) & Marrakech (11/01) . . . without the US) – Relax targets by “do nothing” sinks • Bonn: 54 MMtC for Canada, Japan, Russia • Marrakech: another 15.4 MMtC for Russia – Dropped restrictions on emissions trading • Deferred issue of compliance penalties Q: Were opportunities missed in this period? Why Such Conflict? • Perception of differences in attitude – US, EU, Japan, Canada, Australia, Russia • Why? (Skolnikoff) – Role of industry vs. government – Public attitudes & environmental politics – Fiscal interactions – Role of NGOs – Culture/traditions Others? – National policy structures – International negotiating process Bush Proposal: Feb. 2002 • R&D and subsidies to new technology • 10-year GDP-linked reduction target • Voluntary programs to achieve it – Registry of emissions (still being designed) – Firms can record reductions, get credit against any follow-on mandatory scheme (?) • Promise more action in 2012, if intensity goal isn’t met and “the science warrants” • Bilateral and multi-lateral technology agreements Metric tons carbon equivalent per million dollors GDP, 2001 dollars 190 Reduce GHG 180 180170 - Emission Intensity 18% Over the Next Decade ---A \ A A 170160 - No improvement (183 tons in 2002) no improvement (183 tons in 2002) Current efforts (14%) .' \ A A National goal (18% decline to 151 tons in 2012) (14%) .' national goal (18% decline to 151 tons in 2012) \ \ A 160150 - A A I 150140 2000 \ \ \ a 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 i 2012A I I Year A 2014 A I 140 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Reduce GHG Emission Intensity 18% Over the Next Decade year 2016 What Kyoto Parties Are Doing • The EU – Political commitment – ETS + different country approaches • Japan – Voluntary agreements + nuclear • Canada – Internal conflict • New Zealand – Commitment + easy task • Russia – Conflicting signals The Non-Annex I Parties? • Participation in Kyoto – Focus on CDM • “Common but differentiated responsibilities” – No mitigation commitments!! – Reasons for their fears • Desires for aid . . . & funds under the FCCC – Capacity building – Technology transfer – Adaptation aid Subsequent COP/MOP Activity • Negotiating new targets, post-2012 – No decision deadline or negotiation details • Compliance – Amendment vs. “decision” • CDM – Clear bureaucratic underbrush • Residual sinks issues – Credit for stopping deforestation? • “Dialog” on long-term cooperative action What Path to Coherence? • What venue? • Who is involved? • What form of agreement? • What actions? • What timing? FCCC COP Sec’y SBSTA SBI Kyoto Protocol US & Others MOP ? No Shortage of Proposals, e.g. • KP-type targets & timetables (Reductions from baseline, rolling negotiations) – Wealth trigger for accession – Role of “historical responsibility” – Path to equal tons per capita • Targets & timetables with emissions trade – Head-room provided to Non-Annex B – International safety valve • Harmonized carbon taxes More Proposals • International fund to buy reductions – By direct aid (perhaps development related) – Through an emissions trading regime • Portfolio of policies and measures – Implementation by pledge and review – Targets and timetables as only a loose guide • Protocol on R&D and demonstration Wide open, awaiting the U.S.