Climate Change Expert Group www.oecd.org/env/cc/ccxg.htm

Takayoshi Kato, OECDtakayoshi.kato@oecd.org

Based on the discussion paper “Built to Last: Designing a Flexible and Durable 2015 Climate Change Agreement” by Gregory Briner, Takayoshi Kato and Takashi Hattori

Revisiting and adjustment processes

for the 2015 agreement

CCXG Global Forum

18 March 2014

2 Climate Change Expert Group

Presentation Outline

Outline of different options for flexibility before and after 2015

Processes before COP21

Processes after COP21

Discussion questions

3 Climate Change Expert Group

Before and after the 2015 agreement

There could be different ways of including flexibility in the 2015 agreement before and after COP21;

Providing enough flexibility;

Encouraging broader participation

Keeping the below 2°C goal within reach;

Enhancing predictability for investors

Balance needed between…Consultation

processes

Revisiting & Adjustment

Adoption of the 2015 agreement

Before

After

Consultation processes- Before 2015 agreement

5 Climate Change Expert Group

Possible consultations on intended contributions before COP 21 in 2015

Enhance understanding of intended mitigation contributions

Raise ambition by identifying opportunities for enhanced co-operation and co-ordination

Potential aims of the consultations:

Which Parties? Timeline? Who would be involved? Forms of outputs? Guidance? (if any)

Open questions to clarify:

Revisiting and adjustment processes

- After 2015 agreement

7 Climate Change Expert Group

Process for revisiting and adjustment

Possible approach to establishing revisiting and adjustment processes for mitigation contributions

It could be applied to other aspects of the agreement. (e.g. adaptation, finance, etc.)

Adoption of the 2015 agreement

RevisitinRevisitingg

AdjustmAdjustmentent

8 Climate Change Expert Group

Revisiting the contributions

i) Periodic ii) Triggered

iii) Ad hoc

The 2015 agreement

Adjustment

•Higher predictability of timetable

•More efficient by revisiting only when needed

•Higher flexibility for parties

Pro

Con

•Increasing uncertainty and transaction cost if too frequent

•Politically difficult to agree the nature of triggers

•Might be revisited too often, or not at all

9 Climate Change Expert Group

Options for the triggers

a) Quantitative

b) Qualitative

c) Call by others

ii) Triggered

The 2015 agreement

Adjustment

• Annual GHG emissions• Atmospheric

GHG concentration etc.

• Natural disasters• New scientific

findings

etc.

• Call for contributions of another Party revisited

The POPs ProtocolFTA (Australia, NZ, ASEAN)

WTO (Dispute Settlement System)

10 Climate Change Expert Group

Adjusting the contributions

3 options for adjustment of mitigation contributions.

Yet, the focus would be on upward (strengthening) adjustment in light of the goal of the Convention.

Strengthening

Weakening

Upward

No adj.

• Encourage ambitious initial offer• Facilitate broader participation•Discourage pulling out later

•May result in insufficient near-term collective ambition

Downward

Advantage

DisadvantageNo adj.

Upward

11 Climate Change Expert Group

Discussion questions

1. How to strike the right balance between including flexibility in the agreement, providing predictability for investors and ensuring environmental ambition?

2. What type of process is most likely to result in mitigation contributions that are collectively ambitious enough to keep the below 2-degree goal within reach?

3. Under what conditions, if any, could downward adjustments (i.e. weakening) of mitigation contributions take place?