Copenhagen Outcomes And Usaid Nairobi Narrated W Photos Original Final

Copenhagen outcomes: Implications for USAID

USAID Global Climate Change TeamUSAID/ Washington

February 1, 2010

“I'm committed to working in common effort with countries from around the globe. That's also why I believe what we have achieved in Copenhagen will not be the end but rather the beginning, the beginning of a new era of international action.”

President Barack ObamaDecember 18, 2009Copenhagen COP, closing remarks

The United States is pleased to inform you… of its desire to be associated with the Copenhagen Accord. Attached please find the submission of the United States concerning its emissions reduction target [in the range of 17% by 2020 toward a 83% goal in 2050]…..

We look forward to implementing the Accord...

Todd Stern U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change

Communication to the UNFCCC Executive Secretary January 28, 2010

BREAKING NEWS!!!

Framing the issue: USAID and Climate Change

Sustainable economic growth Cross-sectoral analysis and actions to address

development and environment Political will of governments to make hard choices in favor

of better resource management Demonstrated results from USAID investments Finance for forest conservation, clean energy, and climate

resilient development Effective actions to address climate change

USAID development and environment interests

Global emissions trends

• Increased hunger• Spread of disease• Changes in water

availability• Infrastructure

damage• Change in forest

cover• Amplified hazards• Sea level rise• Loss of biodiversity

Examples of climate change impacts

But we can do things to reduce these impacts!

1994-1999: Country Studies Program – partnerships with developing country governments to build capacity and identify priority actions (CSP and other $150-$200M/yr)

2000-2009: Global climate change and clean energy earmarks/directives, ($150-$200M/yr) Most funding attributed to Biodiversity or Clean Energy,

almost none for Adaptation 2010-2012: New Administration initiative tied to negotiations

and to offsets for US, dedicated funding plus attributed funding 2010 $305 M, 2011 request $500 M

Future: Draft Bills in Congress for $4-8B/yr for Adaptation, REDD, Clean Energy. Expectation this will create significant emissions reductions and offset credits for US companies

Climate Change over the years at USAID**budget numbers are USAID only

UNFCCC negotiations and the Copenhagen Accord

1992: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Country commitments to action and support Bodies for scientific and technical advice (SBSTA), and

implementation (SBI) 1997: Kyoto Protocol negotiated 2005: Kyoto Protocol enters into force, US is not a party 2007: Bali Action Plan

Adhoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) to explore possible new treaty

AWG-KP to negotiate second Kyoto compliance period Mandate to deliver draft decisions for adoption by COP in

Copenhagen, Dec 2009

The UNFCCC framework and processes

Political agreement, not legally binding treaty Global 2 degree Celsius target w/ 2015 review (1.5 degree) “A low emission development strategy is indispensable to

sustainable development” Annexes that will list:

Developed country 2020 emissions reduction commitments

Developing country mitigation action commitments Developed countries provide adequate, predictable and

sustainable funding Monitoring, Reporting, and Verifying provisions for

mitigation and finance REDD-plus funding, Technology Mechanism

Copenhagen Accord: A comprehensive framework

2010-2012, $30B public funding for mitigation & adaptation Includes $1B over 3 years USG announcement for

forest mitigation early action By 2020, annual $100B funding (including private

investment and carbon markets) A “significant portion” of funding to go through Copenhagen

Green Climate Fund for: mitigation including REDD-plus, adaptation, capacity building, technology development and transfer

Monitoring, Reporting, and Verifying of finance

Copenhagen Accord: Finance

Adaptation is listed before mitigation and given equal weight “Funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most

vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa”

No agreed text beyond that contained in Accord

Major remaining issues for negotiation Funding:

How much and who manages? Who gets assistance? (who is “most vulnerable?”) What about “Response Measures?”

Institutional Arrangements Adaptation Advisory Committee? Other?

Copenhagen Accord: Adaptation

All parties submit National Communication every 2 years, to include: National Greenhouse Gas Inventory List of mitigation actions and results of their MRV

Developed country emissions commitments Subject to current and any new MRV provisions under

Convention Developing country mitigation action commitments

Self-financed actions subject to domestic MRV, plus international consultations and analysis

Supported actions subject to international MRV

Copenhagen Accord: Monitoring, Reporting and Verifying mitigation

Legal status of Accord and its component actions

Operationalize Accord MRV system and standards, especially relationship to

National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Green Fund governance, contribution levels, sources NAMA registry

Copenhagen Accord: Cross-cutting finance and MRV negotiation issues for coming year

Establishes a Technology Mechanism To accelerate technology development and transfer in

support of action on both adaptation and mitigation Guided by a country-driven approach

Negotiations reached general consensus in draft text on many elements of a Technology Mechanism; Actions include both cooperative international actions

and unilateral and supported national actions Mechanism would consist of a Technology Executive

Committee (TEC) and a Climate Technology Center (CTC)

Copenhagen Accord: Technology Development and Transfer

Technology Executive Committee: normative body provides support to Parties on broad policy, technical and analytical issues

Climate Technology Center: provides TA and training to support and facilitate implementation of actions

Major remaining issues for negotiation Intellectual Property Rights under the UNFCCC Links between the Mechanism and financial arrangements

and the type of actions the Mechanism would support Role of the Mechanism in MRV of Technology Transfer Functions, operations and governance of TEC and CTC

Copenhagen Accord: Technology Development and Transfer

A short paragraph that explicitly uses term “REDD-plus” Agrees to provide positive incentives to reduce emissions

from deforestation and forest degradation and enhance removals of greenhouse gas emission by forests

Finance mobilized through establishing a mechanism that includes REDD-plus

SBSTA decision on methodology – approved in Copenhagen

Draft text on policy issues related to REDD-plus

Copenhagen Accord: REDD-plus

Countries need robust national forest inventory systems that use combination of remote sending and ground-based carbon inventory approaches

The system and results need to be “transparent, available and suitable for review.”

Estimation of GHG emissions uses latest IPCC Guidelines and Guidance adopted by the COP

To help capture leakage – i.e. displacement of emissions from one location to another - all lands must be accounted for in the greenhouse gas estimation and assigned to a land use category.

Crediting reference level takes account of historic data, and can be adjusted for national circumstances

REDD-plus issues agreed in SBSTA decision

National REDD-plus strategies are required Should be developed with meaningful involvement of all

relevant stakeholders, particularly indigenous peoples and local communities

Countries “identify the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation resulting in emissions”

Safeguards on biodiversity and against forest conversion Safeguards for local and indigenous people and their rights

REDD+ agreed in draft text: Strategies & safeguards

Will the system pay for REDD-plus project credits? Use of REDD-plus credits in emissions markets Methodology and review process for reference levels Designing a Monitoring, Reporting and Verifying system Operationalizing social and biodiversity safeguards

REDD-plus remaining negotiation issues

Immediate actions the world community* can take to implement the Copenhagen Accord

*includes USAID!

Country-driven, politically endorsed strategies for long-term, climate resilient mitigation goals and actions. A long-term emissions baseline and alternative

emission pathways Strategies to achieve the low-emissions pathways Description and prioritization of actions at a level

sufficient to begin implementing and obtain finance Comprehensive review of all sectors, detail in key sectors Implementing the Strategy will create the enabling

environment and capacity to access public finance and carbon market finance

USAID, State, DOE leading interagency process to develop principals, methodology and process for LEDS.

What is a Low Emissions Development Strategy?

Assessment of the capacities, capabilities and political will and appetite of countries to partner with the US in this effort

Quantitative assessment of historical GHG emissions trends

Estimates of mitigation potential of different sectors, mitigation actions and the cost of these actions

Creating institutional capacity to conduct national Greenhouse Gas Inventories every two years

Early actions on Low Emissions Development Strategies, Greenhouse Gas Inventories, and MRV

Disarray in negotiations, so little concrete guidance on priority actions

Demonstrate US commitment to action, not planning Build institutional capacity to access and apply climate

information Help countries identify adaptation and development

priorities Shape early actions and develop best practices through

USAID leadership and example

Early actions on Adaptation

Quantitative assessment of historical GHG emissions trends

Energy Sector assessments including GHG mitigation potentials, GHG mitigation actions, cost and co-benefits

Build country readiness to participate in international carbon markets

Capacity building programs for stakeholders (public sector, private sector, NGO) and Mission Staff in GCC issues, carbon markets

Early actions on Clean Technology

As part of LEDS, support creation of national and sub-national REDD-plus strategies

Analyses of drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, and drivers of increased sequestration

National forest inventory and monitoring systems tied to national GHG Inventories

Indigenous and community involvement and rights, benefit sharing systems and policies

Limited and targeted pilot demonstrations

Early actions on REDD-plus

Development and economic growth is a central theme - focus on Low Emissions Development Strategies

Countries analyze development dynamics, drivers for change, and enabling environment

Unprecedented new political will and incentives for action Monitoring of results, payment for performance, robust

standards, and international review Finance at unprecedented scale for forests, adaptation,

clean energy Framework for robust actions that address climate change

in developing countries

Why should USAID care about the Copenhagen Accord?

“Because the accord may reflect a reordering of global political dynamics it may make possible a profoundly important shift in which action on climate change is no longer seen as a threat, but rather the key, to development, and the future of poverty eradication is recognized as low carbon development. That would be an historic achievement.”

Jonathan LashPresident of the World Resources Institute

Reflecting on the Copenhagen Accord