Negotiations have been going on for 20 years now, and next year the talks will truly come of age at COP 21, in Paris. There, negotiators have agreed to come to a new climate deal, which must apply to all states parties. Lima is crucial, as countries must come up with a draft text for the 2015 agreement in order to respect the procedural rules of the UN and leave enough time for countries to consider it before Paris.
So, just what are the key issues? What will NZYD be following closely during the next two weeks? And what do we think about it all? Read on.
The 2015 agreement
In Warsaw last year it was agreed that all parties will put forward proposals for their new emissions cuts, now known as “intended nationally determined contributions”, or INDCs.
A crucial issue is whether the Paris agreement will be legally binding, or merely a “soft law”, or political commitment that will not be binding under international law. Several countries, including Switzerland, the AOSIS (small island state) countries, Malta, Indonesia and Bangladesh are in favour of legally binding commitments. However, the US is not. New Zealand has put forward a proposal [link] whereby the agreement would not be legally binding, and proposed national contributions would be put forward in a schedule.
Closely linked to this issue is whether the new agreement will be bottom-up or top-down. Some parties want to select their own contributions depending on their national circumstances and capacities. This flexible, bottom-up approach aims to encourage universal participation from all Parties, and makes it easier for states like the US, which has to ratify any legally binding agreement through Congress. Other parties favour a top-down approach based on the latest scientific observations, and concepts like the carbon budget.
Another problem is whether and how there will be international consideration of INDCs. Countries are expected to put forward INDCs prior to the Paris conference, at the end of the first quarter of 2015 or as soon as is practicably possible thereafter. It is widely accepted that the total of the expected pre-Paris INDCs is very unlikely to come close to keeping the average global temperature increase below 2C. How can the agreement be strengthened in such a way that can bridge the gap between weak INDCs and the necessary emission reductions? One proposal is an ex-ante assessment process with two purposes: (1) assessing if individual INDCs are equitable and fair and (2) assessing if INDCs add up to enough emission reductions to stay below 2 degrees.
Yet another issue is the nature of INDCs themselves: should they include mitigation only, or adaptation and climate finance as well? This is a crucial issue for developing countries, who on the whole feel that they should be an all-inclusive package.
NZYD advocates for a fair, ambitious and binding agreement. We encourage the New Zealand Government to advocate for a fully binding agreement in the negotiations for a post-2020 agreement.
Adaptation
Countries disagree on whether new institutions, in addition to those set up under the Cancun Adaptation Framework, should be created for adaptation or not. Many developing countries take the view that new institutional arrangements should be put in place.
Pre-2020 action
Workstream 2 of the ADP will be continuing in Lima. One of its priorities will be to find concrete solutions to close the 2020 emissions gap, which is in the order of 8 to 12 gigatonnes of CO2.
For developing countries, this workstream is essential to confirm that developed countries are serious about reducing their emissions, and to create the climate of trust needed in the talks on the Paris agreement.
The issue of improving finance, technology transfer and capacity-building under workstream 2 will be the subject of debate in Lima, as well as the issue of raising the level of ambition of existing mitigation goals and ensuring that they are implemented.
A new version of the draft text on pre-2020 action was delivered during the most recent ADP session in October 2014, which should serve as a basis for negotiation in Lima.
Climate Finance
This is a serious and ongoing issue. In Copenhagen in 2009, parties pledged to deliver $100 bn per year to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) by 2020. Only $6.9 bn was available to the GCF in December 2013. This figure greatly fuelled the loss of confidence among developed and developing countries. Developing countries and NGOs are already labelling this COP as a “finance COP”, meaning that pressure will be on developed countries to deliver concrete finance in Lima.
NZYD urges the commitment of public finance from developed countries into the Green Climate Fund. Climate finance must be additional to existing climate and development financing, and not shifted from other environmental and development purposes. A broad range of contribution mechanisms is necessary, and these mechanisms must be adequate, sustainable and equitable.