Kyoto Lives!

The first entry on this blog was a prediction of the death of the Kyoto Protocol at Durban as Canada, Russia and Japan weren't going to enter into a second commitment period and the EU had said that it would only do so if the environmental integrity of the agreement was improved (which is code for more nations joining the second commitment period (KP2)).  This looked like an impasse without visible resolution.

Having seen the eventual end of the CoP 17 high level segment happily my prediction was wrong.  There will be a KP2, albeit only with an EU+ group of countries (EU, probably Australia etc).

This does mean that it will cover less than 15% of global emissions and thats a shame.  There is still to be debate on what targets many nations will take on under this KP2 and I don't expect them to be deep, indeed I think its more likely that they will be in line with the existing domestic targets.

While the low level of global emissions that are covered by the KP2 reduces its environmental integrity, I think its been of huge value in two other ways.

1) A a vessel to carry on the existing frameworks like the CDM and JI etc.  The CDM for example has had a huge amount of work put into it, particularly in improving monitoring and verification, and in improving the access and ease of use for LDCs.  This is the scheme that Australia will use under the clean energy futures package for the international offsetting of our domestic emissions for example.

2) As a negotiating piece.  I suspect the statements by Connie Hedegaard that I discussed above may well have been simple gamesmanship.  I think the desire to improve the environmental integrity of a KP2 is sincere, however the EUs historical attachment to the KP and to its position of international leadership on this issue suggests that they would not have given up on it easily.  So I think the statements to the effect that "we wont sign a KP2 unless lots of others do" may have been gamesmanship and allowed the EU broadly, and Hedegaard personally, to have a position they could retreat from in exchange for other nations, particularly developing nations doing something in return.  Something like the outcome of "the EU will sign up to a KP2 now (and remember how difficult the financial position of the EU is at the moment) if developing and transitional nations take on binding targets  in 2020".

If thats the case, I really don't want to play poker against Hedegaard.  I can see myself getting the poker equivalent of a 'pantsing' in pool*.

Either way, Kyoto lives on in a new guise.  I wonder if, in 50 years, we'll be talking about the KP not as a vessel for directly reducing emissions, but as a vessel for much greater action in the long run by being used as a negotiating tool and carrier for the CDM etc.

For the moment, however, it can rightfully claim that reports of my death are greatly exaggerated (with apologies to Mark Twain).



* For those not familiar with that rule, its the punishment for losing a game of Pool without sinking a ball.  You can probably guess from there that the punishment involves the lack of pants and a run of some sort ;)

Waiting is a disaster - Grenada

AOSIS Press Briefing.

AOSIS ministers delivered a stunning rebuke of the negotiations in a sudden press briefing held today.

Ministers told of the visible impacts of climate change and how seriously they are affecting their countries, simultaneously detailing the fragility of their economies.

Grenada is the current chair of AOSIS and passionately stated the following:

• ·         There isn’t enough seriousness at the negotiations.

• ·         He asked “why are we here?  Vacation? No.  I would love to come to Durban for a vacation but we are here because we believe in a multilateral process”

• ·         But it seems that the negotiations are going around in circles.

• ·         He asked “if we believe there is a problem, if we believe the science, why don’t we address the problem?” and said:

• ·         “Waiting is a disaster”

• ·         2020 is too late to start any new agreement.  The science says that 2017 may be a point of no return then clearly 2020 is too late.

• ·         “The islands we live on are seen as a paradise, but you only come for a visit.  We live there.  We have seen the changes in the weather, we have seen the coastal degradation...  We are facing the real effects of the problem.  It’s a living reality for us”

o   “Is this a CoP or is this a corpse – a burial of the process.  We don’t want to end up having to call the undertaker because there is not the political will to do this”

Fiji made a similarly impassioned statement:

• ·         “Waiting is going to be a disaster”

• ·         “Are we prepared to wait for the point of no return”

• ·         We keep hearing that a 2m sea level rise will put Barbados under water, the same is true for Kiribati and Tuvalu.

• ·         For us in Fiji, we were saying perhaps it will happen to the atoll but not us because we’re volcanic.  We have had to start looking at the relocation of the coastal villages.

• ·         The impacts are becoming more and more obvious.

• ·         How long are we going to wait?

• ·         “The situation is not going to improve.  The science is telling us, the experience on the ground is telling us…”

The lead negotiator on finance was a representative from Barbados and continued the impassioned plea for action:

• ·         “We’re small countries, we don’t have any other military, economic or any other kind of power in this process.  We only have power because of the situation.”

• ·         AOSIS have the support of the majority of the parties for their initiatives.

• ·         Want to see a KP2, as well as a legally binding agreement under AWG-LCA.

• ·         KP alone will not deliver the emissions reductions required.

• ·         Raising the level of emission mitigation ambitions.  We’re only doing 60% of what we need to keep below the 2 degree target.

• ·         Implementation and operationalization of Cancun agreements, including the GCF is a important outcome for these talks.

Question from the BBC:

Todd Stern has said that they are committed to the Cancun roadmap and are working to implement it…  He strongly objected to the idea that they are being an obstruction.

AOSIS Chair: “I’m happy to hear that but let me see that in the negotiating room, let me see that in the text, let hear him say that while we sit around the table putting the text together.”

Several things become clear from this press conference.  The level of urgency is rising.  AOSIS members clearly feel they fighting for the survival of their nations, indeed, this is exactly what the science is saying.  This is why the stunning rebuke of the US was delivered in the answer to the BBCs question.

Finally, the MC for the press conference apologised for not having name tags for the speakers and said that it was because the press conference had been thrown together at the last minute.  I think that is a sign of the rising intensity and pressure, not just on delegates, but on the organisers as well.

MCII Climate Risk Adaptation and Insurance in the Caribbean

Background

• ·         From data they have collected about natural catastrophes at Munich Re.

o   Changes in the atmosphere have already contributed to more frequent and more intense catastrophic events.

o   Developing countries are more at risk and are already seeing the worst results.

o   Want to develop risk transfer mechanisms to support global warming adaptation around the world.

o   Official submission to the UNFCCC was made in 2008

•  More submissions in the UNFCCC in Feb this year and another one to the loss and damage program later on.

o   2 pillar idea.  Insurance is not enough alone, there must be prevention too – that will cost $3bn pa.

•  For middle layer risks (10 – 20 year events) and this can be organised by regional and local people.

•  Big events (100 year events) that can totally devastate a poor country should be organised by an international mechanism with a global insurance pool.

• Total cost about $10bn/pa.

·         Pilot scheme in the Caribbean.

o   The Caribbean is highly exposed region – the increase in intense hurricanes, severe drought and sea level rise can have a compounding effect.

o   Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Fund (CCRIF)

o   Micro insurance – has benefits at the macro level.

§  It strengthens the resilience of the locals to cope with the impacts of climate change

·         Germanwatch is involved in this scheme.

o   When recovering from a natural disaster, people often have to use their assets for the most urgent need, they can’t think about the long term.  So in a drought they have to eat their animals, so they don’t have them for future production.

o   Insurance can be one way of mitigating that threat.

o   But it is crucial that the incentive system is working in the right way.  Many insurance systems can behave as a moral hazard.  People say “I’m insured, I don’t have to adapt” but the system can be set up to avoid that. 

• ·         Just covering the costs of damage is not whats interesting – they want to trigger voluntary adaptation.  That works in this case because people are paid out on a given criteria (severity of drought for example), not the actual death of their animals. 

• ·         Working on a pilot scheme in Jamaica, Belize, St Lucia, Grenada and possibly Guyana.

• ·         Ideally, the premium should be paid out of an adaptation fund that is filled by the industrialised countries (GCF funding?)

·         This Caribbean initiative is a good test of the scheme.  It can be a livelihood ‘shock absorber’ to allow residents to get back to work after a disaster, the other benefit is the credit protection in that it allows farmers, for example, to borrow against their farms or livestock.

More information at: 

www.climateinsurance.org

US second press briefing. Delivered by US Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern

  “For us a balanced package in Durban includes 2 main elements.

1. To carry out the agreements reached in last years Cancun talks – including undertakings by all major emitters.
2. Continue work on the GCF.”

Second set of issues is about Kyoto.

·         And there will be a lot of work on this in the week to come.

• ·         US domestic commitments.

o   Are mostly being undertaken through discrete action by relevant bodies.  The EPA, for example, has tightened fuel economy requirements for the transport sector and is working in regulations for stationary sources.

• ·         Binding agreements.

o   The US is happy to enter into a binding agreement if all major emitters are in with obligations of the same legal force.  They don’t want the same targets to be applied, just that the agreement has the same legal force.

• ·         GCF framework.

o   The US fully supports this move and has contributed about $5 bn to the fast start finance.

o   The role of the COP with respect to the fund:

•   Under the convention the financial mechanism works so this kind of fund operates under the guidance but not the authority of the COP.

•  “Although I love climate negotiators and spend a lot of my time with then, they may not be the most qualified people to administer a multibillion dollar fund”

• ·         China.

o   The US and China see eye to eye on a lot of things and have a good working (and personal) relationship on this issue and will be meeting tomorrow.

o   “China is in the game” with the 40 – 45% reduction of emissions intensity target.

• ·         KP.

o   Only covered about 28% of emissions and with Russian, Canada and Japan not entering into a second CP, it will only cover about 15%

o   Cancun commitments cover about 85% of emissions and these are serious commitments made under the convention.

o   There is an excess focus on KP and the be all and end all but legally binding is a means to an end.  It may or may not be the best means to the end but remember that it’s the end that matters.

UNFCCC Executive Secretary Third Briefing.

Christiana Figueres delivered the UNFCCC Executive Secretaries third briefing on Friday 2 December.

In this briefing she announced that:

• ·         SBSTA and SBI meetings closed on Saturday

o   SBSTA has agreed on a work program for loss and damages and will shortly report back on its work to date.

• ·         AWG’s will continue to work for as long as is needed.

o   AWG-LCA has presented a rough draft for negotiating text for ministers to consider.

o   AWG-KP are working on a framework to determine possible options given the current positions of the EU, Japan, Russia, Canada and China.

• ·         Parties are engaging in a series of Indaba meetings.  Indaba is a South African word that means to bring leaders together and collaboratively build a common knowledge and understanding.

• ·       The first $30 billion of high level finance has been pledged.  An interactive map showing donors and recipients is available here: http://unfccc.int/pls/apex/f?p=116:4:534051768383465:RECIPIENTWD:::RID:9

o   Work continues to work out the process to ramp funding up from $30 billion/year to $100 billion/year.

• ·         The Russian proposal to amend the convention for a periodic review of the annex parties continues.

o   It will be under informal consultation between the parties for the next few days.

o   A delegate will be appointed by the president to ascertain parties views and then report back to the president next week.

I imagine that non-annex parties, particularly Saudi Arabia will oppose the Russian proposition, however it is an interesting one and deserves further monitoring.  The principle of the Indaba meeting is a very interesting one as it looks like an effort to build ministerial consensus and understanding, possibly as a way of breaking out of the established pattern that has seen the KP2 issue remain unresolved.

Private Drought Insurance in East Africa.

Today I’m looking at an application of the climate change insurance principle.

http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/insurance-aims-to-help-herders-avoid-downward-spiral-from-drought

This details an example of drought insurance in East Africa.  This is an interesting example because it’s a case of offering insurance to those most at risk from the challenges of climate change.  Its an important example here because it shows what an on the ground scheme can look like – through managing to work through the trust, illiteracy, access and technology issues.  These are achieved through working through the village chiefs to appoint a reliable member as the trained representative.  Pay outs are done through remote sensing, and so the requirements for verification are reduced.

This shows that the climate change insurance program being discussed in SBI 35 has an existing model it can work from, and through improving funding, expand it in the future.