Briner (oecd)durable2015 built to last ccxg gf-march2014
1. 1 Climate Change Expert Group
Breakout group session outline
Part 1 (11:45 – 13:15)
What does “durable” mean?
Structure of the 2015 agreement
Metrics used to express contributions
Part 2 (14:30 – 16:00)
Process for revisiting and adjusting contributions
Part 3 (16:30 – 18:00)
Continued discussion and next steps
2. Climate Change Expert Group www.oecd.org/env/cc/ccxg.htm
Gregory Briner, OECD
gregory.briner@oecd.org
Based on the draft paper “Built to Last: Designing a Flexible and Durable 2015 Climate
Change Agreement” by Gregory Briner, Takayoshi Kato and Takashi Hattori
Built to Last:
Introduction and options for flexibility in the
structure and metrics of the 2015
agreement
CCXG Global Forum
18 March 2014
3. 3 Climate Change Expert Group
Built to Last: presentation outline
What does “durable” mean?
Structure of the 2015
agreement
Metrics used to express
contributions
Questions for discussion
Source: John Perivolaris
4. 4 Climate Change Expert Group
What does “durable” mean?
“A durable 2015 agreement would be an
agreement that is ambitious and fair when it
comes into effect from 2020, and continues to be
ambitious and fair in response to structural
changes and external shocks after 2020…”
Flexibility Predictabilit
y
Flexibility
5. 5 Climate Change Expert Group
Possible changes
and external shocks
Scientific
Source: Wikimedia Commons
Natural disasters
Source: NASA Goddard
Economic
Source: Wikimedia Commons
Political
Source: Wikimedia Commons
Demographic
Source: Greg Briner
Technological
Source: Solar Impulse
6. 6 Climate Change Expert Group
Possible structure of the agreement
Information
document
Information
document
Information
document
COP
decision
COP decision
COP decisionCOP decision
COP
decision
Core political
and/or
legal
agreement
(with annexes)
7. 7 Climate Change Expert Group
Metrics used to express contributions
The metrics used to express mitigation contributions
could affect how flexible the 2015 agreement is
Examples of flexible metrics: emissions intensity,
GHG emissions relative to BAU, non-GHG metrics
These metrics can increase responsiveness to
external shocks, but also increase uncertainty
regarding future environmental outcomes
Multiple contributions by a country expressed using
different metrics could be more durable than a single
contribution expressed in GHG terms
8. 8 Climate Change Expert Group
Discussion questions
What are possible interpretations of the term
“durable” in the context of the 2015 climate change
agreement?
How could the 2015 agreement be structured in a
durable manner?
Could the use of metrics such as emissions
intensity, GHG emissions relative to BAU and non-
GHG metrics by some Parties help to make the
agreement more durable?
Notes de l'éditeur
The aim of this paper is to explore what a flexible and durable climate change agreement could look like and propose pragmatic options for the design of such an agreement. While the focus of this paper is on the mitigation part of the 2015 agreement, the concepts and approaches outlined could be relevant to other aspects of the agreement (including adaptation, finance and transparency).
Would fulfil the objectives of the Convention both now and in the future
Keep the below 2 ºC goal within reach
Not being constantly re-negotiated, long shelf life
Responsive to changing situations and contexts
Flexibility – changing contributions later, responding to events, can help increase participation
Predictability – regarding environmental outcome and 2 degree goal, also minimising uncertainty for investors
Success needed on both fronts to make agreement durable
Changes and shocks - impact on the ability of countries to meet their mitigation contributions, positive or negative, long term, short term
Science – some risks could be graver than previously thought, link policy to latest scientific findings
Natural disasters – not just climate change, affect capacity and resources
Economic [Bank panic on Wall Street in 1907] - positive or negative, rapidly-growing economies, recessions
Political - changes of government, short-term nature of political cycles, profile of climate change waxes and wanes
Demographic – population, shifting income distributions, increasing urbanisation and the rise of the middle classes in emerging economies
Technology [Solar Impulse, flew across the US last year] – innovation, costs changing rapidly, impact on energy mixes positive or negative, cost-effective ways of exploiting unconventional and carbon intensive fossil fuel reserves
Unknown unknowns - other high-impact low-probability events, possible to design an agreement with characteristics that give it a better chance of coping with, or even benefiting from, unpredictable events - flexibility, transparency, open data, feedback loops, responsiveness
Flexibility would depend on how contributions are included in the 2015 agreement
Could be in annex, like the Kyoto Protocol
Could be in information documents, like 2020 pledges
Can be quicker and easier to make adjustments to information documents than amendments to the text of a core agreement
Montreal Protocol has been adjusted six times and amended four times to date.
Could be combined with revisiting and adjustment process
The extent to which contributions expressed in terms of emissions relative to a BAU baseline are flexible depends on whether the baseline will be updated, and if so, how