The Post 2012 Impasse: Backgrounder on Principles and Practice

1. The Post 2012 Impasse: Backgrounder on Principles and Practice Meinhard Doelle Marine & Environmental Law Institute Dalhousie Law School Halifax, Canada September 24, 2005

2. Current State of the Regime • Kyoto in force • Annex I ratifications • Coalition of the unwilling (US, Aust, …?) • G-77 have ratified, but no emission reduction obligations • Discussions on post 2012 stalled since COP 8 • G-77 not ready to take on Kyoto type targets

3. Current State of the Regime • Annex I Perspectives • Most prepared to accept some responsibility • Focus on de-coupling GHG emissions and economic growth • Limited willingness to sacrifice economic growth (See Blair, Sept 2005) • General view that GHG emission reductions are also needed in developing countries (not clear how) • Little signs of accepting liability • Some accommodation for EITs

4. Current State of the Regime • Non-Annex I Perspectives • Power imbalance necessitates G-77 alliance • Divergent interests within G-77 • Lack of negotiating capacity • Annex I countries are seen as solely responsible • No willingness to take on reduction targets

5. Future of the Regime • Key Negotiation Issues • Willingness to mitigate domestically • Willingness to help with mitigation elsewhere • Adaptation domestically (domestic issue?) • Willingness to help with impacts and adaptation elsewhere • Willingness to accept conditions in return for help • Underlying Issue: Liability

6. Future of the Regime • Adequacy of the Response the Overriding Concern (Intergenerational Equity) • Rest a Matter of Allocation • Allocation an Intra-generational Equity Issue • From Pledge-based to Principle-based Allocation? • Establishment of Principles as the Basis for Motivating States to be “Willing” to be “Adequate”?

7. Future of the Regime Principles for allocation of responsibility to address climate change • Historical responsibility • Capacity • Potential • Adequacy • What Mechanisms have been proposed for allocation of responsibility for mitigation, impacts, adaptation, and liability? • What are the causes of the current impasse? • What can be done to get past them?

8. Principles • Historical Responsibility • Cumulative • Pre-industrial as baseline • Increase in GHG concentration • Linked to non-natural emissions • Allocate according to total emissions • Adjusted over time according to ongoing emissions

9. Principles • Potential • The higher the emissions, the greater the potential • Energy sources available • Current and future business as usual energy needs • Climate and energy needs • Other differences in potential to make reductions (rural vs urban…)

10. Principles • Capacity • Ability to make reductions at home and still meet population needs • Ability to assist other States • Measuring Capacity • GDP • Human Development Index • Access to technology • Access to energy that is part of the solution

11. Principles • Adequacy • This is about ensuring the cumulative effort is enough to address climate change • Article 2, preventing dangerous human interference with climate system • Important to be clear about what that means to ensure meaningful progress • Debate can become a delay tactic

12. Proposals for Post 2012 • Continue with Kyoto • Brazilian Proposal • Per Capita Plus • SD Policies and Measures • Intensity Targets • Equity Approach • Tackling the Taboos of Liability and Mitigation • Multi-track approach

13. Proposals for Post 2012 • Equity Approach • Hermann Ott et al, Equity in the Greenhouse • Equity as a pre-condition for global cooperation • To date, distribution of burden is anything but equitable • Need to individualize the approach, look at each State’s responsibility, capacity, potential and needs • Move forward with both adaptation and mitigation • Distribute obligations and benefits accordingly

14. Proposals for Post 2012 • Tackling the “Twin Taboos” • Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (Benito Mueller) • Must address Q of LIABILITY • Must ensure MITIGATION IN NON-ANNEX I • Focus on Building Trust, each side making concessions • Focus on development first, but on a low emissions development path

15. Proposals for Post 2012 • Multi-track approach • CAN Three Track Proposal • Kyoto Track (tougher targets, a few more States) • Decarbonisation Track (softer mitigation track, Non-Annex I, except LDCs) • Adaptation Track (Assistance according to responsibility and capacity)

16. Principles and Positions • EU (+ Other European States) • More accepting of historical responsibility • High capacity • Medium Potential • UG (US, Australia, Japan, Russia, Canada…) • Not as accepting of historical responsibility • High Capacity • High Potential • G-77 • Insisting on historical responsibility • Low capacity • Mixed potential

17. The Heart of the Impasse • Clear that G-77 need a lot of help to pursue low emissions development path • Clear that Annex I need to make deep reductions from current emissions • What is not clear is whether capacity or responsibility should guide the relationship • How do we get to low emissions development path in G-77? • Q for climate change regime is whether this issue can be negotiated, or whether we need international law to assist

18. Key Challenges for the Negotiations • Domestic action inadequate • Capacity has not lead to sufficient international assistance • Liability issues not resolved • Developing Countries reluctant to commit to low emissions development path

19. Long Term Objectives • Annex I must demonstrate that low emissions can = high quality of life • Annex I must help Non-Annex I achieve quality of life at low emissions • Parties must resolve role of historical responsibility in establishing liability and obligations

20. Possible Steps Forward • Inequity of positions of States who are blocking progress must be exposed • Negotiating capacity of Non-Annex I must be improved • Bilateral cooperation involving EU – G-77 • UNFCCC and Kyoto Processes need to move forward in parallel