COMMON IN DURBAN BUT DIFFERENTIATED IN PARIS?

Equity under the Durban Platform of climate negotiations

OUTLINE

1. Common but differentiated responsibilities

2. Common but differentiated responsibilities 1992-

2009

3. The Durban reset: ‘applicable to all’

4. Five options for differentiation in Paris

COMMON BUT DIFFERENTIATED RESPONSIBILITIES

The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of

equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating

climate change and the adverse effects thereof.- UNFCCC, art 3(1)

[…] taking into account [the UNFCCC Parties’] common but differentiated responsibilities and their specific national and

regional development priorities, objectives and circumstances […]- UNFCCC, art 4

DIFFERENTIATION UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

‘In the developed world only two people ride in a car, and yet you want us to give up riding on a bus.’- Lead Chinese negotiator, COP 3 in Kyoto, 1997

• Berlin mandate imposed strict firewall of differentiation• Carried over into Kyoto Protocol

DIFFERENTIATION UNDER THE BALI ACTION PLAN

1. Quantified emissions limitation and reduction

objectives (QELROS) for Annex I Parties

2. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAS)

for Non-Annex Parties

AN EMERGING GENERAL PRINCIPLE?

‘14. The obligations of States are common but differentiated.’- Oslo Principles, 2015

‘In my view, the [common but differentiated responsibilities] principle is not necessary, and it is not helpful. […] To me, this notion is nowhere close to being either hard or soft law […]’

- Susan Biniaz, US Department of State, 2002

TWO ARCHITECTURES FOR MITIGATION COMMITMENTS

1. Top down

• Idealised model of Kyoto Protocol

• Protocol sets out each Parties’ commitment

2. Bottom up

• Each Party sets their own target

• Copenhagen Accord and Cancun Agreements

THE DURBAN RESET: APPLICABLE TO ALL

• New process launched.

• Three key points:

1. an agreement ‘with legal force’

2. ‘under the Convention applicable to all

Parties’

3. to be agreed in 2015 and implemented from

2020

FROM DOHA TO LIMA

• Repeated debates about equity and differentiation

• Without prejudice ‘Intended Nationally Determined

Contribution’ process

• Lima Call for Climate Action confirms Parties’ will be

differentiated – but how?

FIVE MODELS IN THE GENEVA DRAFT TEXT

1. Retain the current Annexes

2. Draft new Annexes

3. Emissions budget and equity reference framework

4. Pledge and formal review

5. Pledge and ‘chat’

RETAINING CURRENT ANNEXES

• Superficially reflects historical responsibility and

respective capabilities

• Eight of the top ten per capita emitters are Non-

Annex I

• Grubb: ‘[t]he world has changed much faster than the

UNFCCC’

DRAFTING NEW ANNEXES

• Devil would be in the detail

• Proposed by the US in Geneva in February

• Politically impossible

• LMDCs and BASIC oppose

• Russian proposal to amend Annexes stuck in

filibuster

EMISSIONS BUDGET AND EQUITY REFERENCE FRAMEWORK

• Proposed by AOSIS

• Ecologically sound in theory

• Diplomatically infeasible

PLEDGE AND REVIEW PLUS

• May encourage participation

• Will require compromises, but is a likely landing

point

• Blends bottom-up and top-down elements

• Review could be ex ante or ex post

• Can build on existing review models

PLEDGE AND ‘CHAT’

‘Parties know best their specific circumstances, responsibilities, capacities and needs’

- Switzerland, February 2015

• Winkler: ‘very unlikely’ to achieve ultimate objective• Parties self-assessments unlikely to have ethical basis• Opposed by G77+China in Geneva,

FORECAST FOR PARIS

• One of two pledge and review models

• Need for formalised top down elements

• If Parties cannot agree on review, may collapse into

pledge and chat

SUBJECTIVE DIFFERENTIATION

• Parties’ self assessments unlikely to accord with

empirical evidence

• Likely to lack ambition without review or ratchet up

• So, undercuts both limbs of principle