英文BG:UNCCC backgroud study

As Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of UNCCC once said, “The climate crisis is a result of our living beyond our planet’s means.” Such a crisis places real challenge to the global sustainable development and the well-being of human beings, and it can hardly be addressed without commitments and joint efforts of the international community.

The past two decades witnessed some inspiring progress in coping with the climate change. After the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was produced and later entered into force, the UNCCC has been held annually by parties of the UNFCCC to negotiate on international cooperation and assess progress having been made.

The previous negotiations of both the Framework Convention and Kyoto Protocol indicate general agreement on the need to mitigate climate change while allowing for continued economic growth. However, further coordination will be needed, especially between developed and developing countries, which is also what we expect you to work on in this conference.

We believe that this conference will provide you with a platform to exchange ideas on climate change resolutions, an opportunity to experience international negotiation and a stage to demonstrate your excellence.

We are looking forward for your outstanding performance and we wish this conference a great success.

Dais of UNCCC

B. Introduction of the Conference

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was opened for signature at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro (known by its popular title, the Earth Summit). On June 12, 1992, 154 nations signed the UNFCCC, that upon ratification committed signatories' governments to reduce atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases with the goal of "preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with Earth's climate system". And also, United Nations Climate Change Conference is an irregular but special conference set for nations to discuss global climate problems.

The treaty itself set no binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries and contains no enforcement mechanisms. In that sense, the treaty is considered legally non-binding. Instead, the treaty provides a framework for negotiating specific international treaties (called "protocols") that may set binding limits on greenhouse gases.

The UNFCCC was opened for signature on May 9, 1992, after an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee produced the text of the Framework Convention as a report following its meeting in New York from April 30 to May 9, 1992. It entered into force on March 21, 1994. As of May 2011, UNFCCC has 194 parties.

The parties to the convention have met annually from 1995 in Conferences of the Parties (COP) to assess progress in dealing with climate change. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was concluded and established legally binding obligations for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The 2010 Cancun agreements state that future global warming should be limited to below 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) relative to the pre-industrial level.

One of the first tasks set by the UNFCCC was for signatory nations to establish national greenhouse gas inventories of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals, which were used to create the 1990 benchmark levels for accession of Annex I countries to the Kyoto Protocol and for the commitment of those countries to GHG reductions. Updated inventories must be regularly submitted by Annex I countries.

C．Background of Global Climate Change

Climate change represents a change in the long-term weather pattern, which has occurred naturally over millions of years. However when scientists talk about the issue climate change, their concern is about global warming caused by human activities. Since the Industrial Revolution the need for energy to run machines has steadily increased. Much of this comes from burning fuels like coal and oil-fossil fuels, which releases massive greenhouse gases. The earth is warming. The average temperature is expected to rise by at least 2℃ by the end of this century, probably more. For the reason that plant diseases and pest infestations, as well as the supply of and demand for irrigation water are influenced by climate, such a warming trend can be expected to affect the agricultural systems in a large scale. What’s more, climate change threatens the necessities of life that we take for granted--access to food and water as well as political stability. By 2050, 200 million people could be permanently displaced by floods, rising sea levels and droughts. Food and water shortages could lead to migration and instability on a scale not seen before. In addition, 30% of animal species are thought to be at risk of extinction. For those vulnerable countries, climate change is expected to have even more devastating impact on their people's security in the belief that tiny in nature, those countries have limited resources with which to fight environmental problems such as pollution, waste management and erosion.

Countries by carbon dioxide emissions world map

D. International Cooperation

1. UNFCCC

According to the UNFCCC, Parties should act to protect the climate system on the basis of "common but differentiated responsibilities", and that developed country Parties should "take the lead" in addressing climate change. Parties to the UNFCCC are classified as:

Annex I: Parties to the UNFCCC listed in Annex I of the Convention. These are the industrialized (developed) countries and "economies in transition" (EITs). EITs are the former centrally-planned (Soviet) economies of Russia and Eastern Europe. The European Union-15 (EU-15) is also an Annex I Party.
Annex II: Parties to the UNFCCC listed in Annex II of the Convention. Annex II Parties are made up of members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Annex II Parties are required to provide financial and technical support to the EITs and developing countries to assist them in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions (climate change mitigation) and manage the impacts of climate change (climate change adaptation).
Annex B: Parties listed in Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol are Annex I Parties with first- or second-round Kyoto greenhouse gas emissions targets (see Kyoto Protocol for details). The first-round targets apply over the years 2008-2012. As part of the 2012 Doha climate change talks, an amendment to Annex B was agreed upon containing with a list of Annex I Parties who have second-round Kyoto targets, which apply from 2013-2020. The amendments have not entered into force.
Non-Annex I: Parties to the UNFCCC not listed in Annex I of the Convention are mostly low-income developing countries. Developing countries may volunteer to become Annex I countries when they are sufficiently developed.

The Framework Convention specifies the aim of developed (Annex I) Parties stabilizing their greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases not regulated under the Montreal Protocol) at 1990 levels, by the year 2000. After the signing of the UNFCCC treaty, Parties to the UNFCCC have met at conferences ("Conferences of the Parties" - COPs) to discuss how to achieve the treaty's aims. At the 1st Conference of the Parties (COP-1), Parties decided that the aim of Annex I Parties stabilizing their emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 was "not adequate", and further discussions at later conferences lead to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol sets emissions targets for developed countries which are binding under international law.

The 2010 Cancun agreements (COP 16) include voluntary pledges made by 76 developed and developing countries to control their emissions of greenhouse gases. At the 2012 Doha climate change talks (COP 18), Parties to the UNFCCC agreed to a timetable for a global agreement which will include all countries. The timetable states that a global agreement should be adopted by 2015, and implemented by 2020.

2. Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international treaty that sets binding obligations on industrialized countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. 191 countries (all UN members, except Andorra, Canada, South Sudan and the United States), as well as the European Union are Parties to the Protocol, signed the Framework. The United States signed but did not ratify the Protocol and Canada withdrew from it in 2011. The Protocol was adopted by Parties to the UNFCCC in 1997, and entered into force in 2005.

As part of the Kyoto Protocol, many developed countries have agreed to legally binding limitations/reductions in their emissions of greenhouse gases in two commitments periods. The first commitment period applies to emissions between 2008 and 2012, and the second commitment period applies to emissions between 2013 and 2020. The protocol was amended in 2012 to accommodate the second commitment period, but this amendment has (as of January 2013) not entered into legal force.

The 37 countries with binding targets in the second commitment period are Australia, all members of the European Union, Belarus, Croatia, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have stated that they may withdraw from the Protocol or not put into legal force the Amendment with second round targets. Japan, New Zealand, and Russia have participated in Kyoto's first-round but have not taken on new targets in the second commitment period. Other developed countries without second-round targets are Canada (which withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2012) and the United States (which has not ratified the Protocol.

The Protocol defines three "flexibility mechanisms" that can be used by Annex I Parties in meeting their emission limitation commitments. The flexibility mechanisms are International Emissions Trading (IET), the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and Joint Implementation (JI). IET allows Annex I Parties to "trade" their emissions (Assigned Amount Units, AAUs, or "allowances" for short).

International emissions trading allow developed countries to trade their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. They can trade emissions quotas among themselves, and can also receive credit for financing emissions reductions in developing countries. Developed countries may use emissions trading until late 2014 or 2015 to meet their first-round targets.

Developing countries do not have binding targets under the Kyoto Protocol, but are still committed under the treaty to reduce their emissions. Actions taken by developed and developing countries to reduce emissions include support for renewable energy, improving energy efficiency, and reducing deforestation. Under the Protocol, emissions of developing countries are allowed to grow in accordance with their development needs.

The treaty recognizes that developed countries have contributed the most to the anthropogenic build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (around 77% of emissions between 1750 and 2004), and that carbon dioxide emissions per person in developing countries (2.9 tons in 2010) are, on average, lower than emissions per person in developed countries (10.4 tons in 2010).

A number of developed countries have commented that the Kyoto targets only apply to a small share of annual global emissions. Countries with second-round Kyoto targets made up 13.4% of annual global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. Many developing countries have emphasized the need for developed countries to have strong, binding emissions targets. At the global scale, existing policies appear to be too weak to prevent global warming exceeding 2 or 1.5 degrees Celsius, relative to the pre-industrial level.

3. Carbon Emissions Trading

Annual total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions arising from the global energy supply sector continue to increase. Without the near-term introduction of supportive and effective policy actions by governments, energy-related GHG emissions, mainly from fossil fuel combustion, are projected to rise by over 50% from 26.1 GtCO2eq (7.1 GtC) in 2004 to 37–40 GtCO2 (10.1–10.9 GtC) by 2030. But a global energy market, which is still dominated by combustion of fossil fuels, is striving to meet the ever-increasing demand for heat, electricity and transport fuels.

Emissions trading or cap-and-trade is a market-based approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. The transfer of permits is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions. Thus, in theory, those who can reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest cost to society. Currently there are six exchanges trading in UNFCCC related carbon credits: the Chicago Climate Exchange, European Climate Exchange, NASDAQ OMX Commodities Europe, Power Next, Commodity Exchange Bratislava and the European Energy Exchange. Trading in emission permits is one of the fastest-growing segments in financial services. Louis Redshaw, head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital, predicts that "Carbon will be the world's biggest commodity market, and it could become the world's biggest market overall." The Marrakesh Accords of the Kyoto protocol defined the international trading mechanisms and registries needed to support trading between countries, with allowance trading now occurring between European countries and Asian countries.

However, emissions trading have been criticized for a variety of reasons. First of all, global warming will require more radical change than the modest changes driven by previous pollution trading schemes such as the US sulfur dioxide market. Secondly, carbon trading encourages business-as-usual as expensive long-term structural changes will not be made if there is a cheaper source of carbon credits. Cheap "offset" carbon credits are frequently available from the less developed countries, where they may be generated by local polluters at the expense of local communities. It was argued that the emissions trading are an "environmentally ineffective and socially unjust projects."

More information:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCARBONFINANCE/Resources/State_and_Trends_2012_Web_Optimized_19035_Cvr&Txt_LR.pdf

4. Reactions of Main Countries

The Kyoto Protocol has obliged the developed countries to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So far, most developed countries have put forward their midterm reduction targets, with the European Union, Japan and the United States calling them "ambitious", "notable" and "significant".

EU: The 27-nation bloc has pledged to only cut emissions from 2013 to 2020 by 20 percent from 1990 levels, which translate to an annual reduction rate of only 1.05 percent, even less than half of its commitment in the first commitment period of 2008-2012, when it was committed to cut emissions by 8 percent from 1990 levels, with an annual reduction rate of 2.48 percent. Even if the EU would finally raise its reduction rate to 30 percent for the 2013-2020 periods, the annual reduction rate will be 1.93 percent, still lower than its commitment in the first commitment period. The European Union has been a major supporter of the Kyoto Protocol, and has been working to convince wavering countries join the treaty.

Japan: Compared with its predecessor, the current Japanese government seems to have adopted a more active attitude in tackling climate change as they have promised to cut emissions by 2020 by 25 percent from 1990 levels. However, its commitment is ridden with problems and the main one is that has attached strings to its reduction target, demanding that the United States and some developing countries get involved in the emission reduction drive.

United States: America has 3% to 4% of the world’s whole population but more than a quarter of the world’s carbon emissions. Its pledge of a 17-percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2020 is striking in appearance. In fact, the 17-percent reduction is only equal to 4-percent reduction from the 1990 levels. The figure can hardly be regarded as "remarkable" or "notable." As a matter of fact, the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions continued to grow even though it has long completed industrialization. According to statistics from UNFCCC, the U.S. emissions grew by 16 percent from 1990 to 2005. America quitted the Kyoto Protocol at 2001 due to Bush Government announcements that “Reducing carbon emissions will certainly stunt the country’s economy growth.” and that “Developing countries ought to undertake the obligation of GHG emission mitigation.”

Canada: Canada is the second country after the US that formally withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol. Its minister of the environment has said the protocol "does not represent a way forward for Canada" and the country would face crippling fines for failing to meet its targets. He said meeting Canada's obligations under Kyoto would cost $13.6bn (10.3bn euros; £8.7bn): "That's $1,600 from every Canadian family - that's the Kyoto cost to Canadians that was the legacy of an incompetent Liberal government". “We believe that a new agreement that will allow us to generate jobs and economic growth represents the way forward," he said.

After the Bali Conference, developed countries have taken a similar stance on this issue, and have tried to put pressure on developing countries, especially China and India, to commit to emission cuts by placing conditions on technology transfer and funding. Although there are differences among the developing countries they have stuck with the framework of the Group of 77 in talks with their developed counterparts. The attitude of the Group’s countries is that talks should be held within the framework of United Nations and its basic principles cannot be abandoned.

In recent years, developing countries such as China, India, Brazil and Mexico have also joined the ranks of high emitters of greenhouse gases due to their rapid economic growth and rising energy-consumption.

A series of activities concerning emissions cuts and cooperation on climate change have been launched in China and India in accordance with each country's national plans for coping with climate change. But cuts in discharges have not been quantified due to developing focus on economic growth and poverty reduction.

China: have published emissions reduction goals, showing their willingness of take on international responsibilities. China announces that it will adhering to the basic framework of UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol. However China insists that developing countries and developed countries should carry out the principle of” common but differentiated responsibilities” due to the economy level and the gap between carbon emissions.

India: After discussion, India government published the emission reduction targets that by 2020, the emissions of more than 2005 years to 24%, 2030, 37% reduction. However their environment minister also announced that" In response to climate change, we have a national action plan, but which has no legal binding commitments."

Brazil: Amazon Rainforest contains half of the world’s rainforest, sits 60% in Brazil. The evergreen forests of the Amazon rainforest accounted for 10% of the global terrestrial ecosystem carbon and carbon element production storage volume of 10% Brazil's annual emissions of about 300 million tons of carbon dioxide, 2/3 from deforestation and burning of the Amazon rainforest. Although the Brazil government legislation to protect the forest ecological, illegal loggers average a year to cut 1700000 cubic meters of forest .

E．Challenges Ahead

1. Dispute about equity

UNFCCC states that Parties should protect the climate system on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated with responsibilities and respective capabilities. But now there are still many debates about the problem of equity. For example, the Developed countries propose that the obligation of reducing GHG emission should also be taken by the developing countries.

Traditionally, success in development has been measured in economic terms – increase in Gross National Income (GNI) per capita remains the most common measure18. Likewise, income distribution has been one of the key components in equity, both within and between countries, and has been measured in terms of inequalities of income, through measures such as the ‘GINI’ coefficient.

The UNDP Human Development Index (HDI) is an important attempt to widen the indicators of development, and initially included per capita national income, life expectancy at birth and the literacy rate. However, it is important to recognize that no single all-encompassing indicator can be constructed, will be understandable or useful to either policymakers or the public, so different indexes have to be used that reflect different issues and purposes.

This wider analysis of equity has important implications for sharing the costs of mitigation and for assessing the impacts of climate change. As generally known, the impacts of climate change are distributed very unequally across the planet, hurting the vulnerable and poor countries of the tropics much more than the richer countries in the temperate regions. Moreover, these impacts do not work exclusively, or even mainly, through changes in real incomes. The well-being of future generations will be affected through the effects of climate change on health, economic insecurity and other factors. As far as the costs of actions to reduce GHG are concerned, measures that may be the least costly in overall terms are often not the ones that are the most equitable.

Given that markets for GHG emission permits work well in terms of competition, transparency and low transaction costs, and trade-offs between economic efficiency and equity (resulting from the distribution of emission rights) does not need to occur. In this ideal case, equity and economic efficiency can be addressed separately, where equity is taken care of in the design of emission allocation rules, and economic efficiency is promoted by the market system.

In practice, however, emission markets do not live up to these ideal conditions and the allocation of emission permits, both in international and domestic settings, will have an influence on the structure and functioning of emission markets, so trade-offs between what seems to be equitable emission allocations and economic efficiency can often occur. Some of the issues that have been raised in relation to the facilitation of equity concerns through initial emission permit allocations include the large differences in emission permits and related market power that different countries would have.

2. Funding and Technology

Preventing risks of severe damage from climate change not only requires deep cuts in developed country greenhouse gas emissions, but enormous amounts of public and private investment to limit emissions while promoting green growth in developing countries. While attention has focused on emissions limitations commitments and architectures, the crucial issue of what must be done to mobilize and govern the necessary financial resources has received too little consideration. In Climate Finance, a leading group of policy experts and scholars shows how effective mitigation of climate change will depend on a complex mix of public funds, private investment through carbon markets, and structured incentives that leave room for developing country innovations. This requires sophisticated national and global regulation of cap-and-trade and offset markets, forest and energy policy, international development funding, international trade law, and coordinated tax policy. The investment and financial flows needed for development in the midst of growing populations and a changing climate will be substantial.

Assessed stabilization scenarios concur that 60 to 80% of the reductions over the course of the century would come from energy supply and use and industrial processes. So transfer of technology for adaptation to climate change is also an important element of reducing vulnerability to climate change. Technology transfer, in particular from developed countries to developing countries, must therefore operate on a broad front covering these software and hardware challenges, and ideally within a framework of helping to find new sustainable paths for economies as a whole.

Barriers to the technology transfer range from lack of information; insufficient human capabilities; political and economic barriers such as lack of capital, and trade and policy limitations.

F．Expectations

1. Sustainable Development

With regard to adaptation to climate change, the additional global investment and financial flows from all sources (private and public, domestic and international) needed to adapt to climate change by 2030 could be tens of billions of dollars by 2030. The change in investment and financial flows for adaptation that will need to occur in developed and developing countries varies by sector. A significant share of the additional investment and financial flows will be needed (US$ 28–67 billion).

Adaptation actions should be financially supported, and take into account the urgent and immediate needs of developing countries, particularly the Less Developed Countries (LDC), Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and African countries facing drought, desertification, and floods.

Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt. Reliance on adaptation alone could eventually lead to a magnitude of climate change to which effective adaptation is not possible, or will only be available at very high social, environmental and economic costs.

With regard to mitigation of climate change, globally, US$ 200–210 billion investment and financial flows from all sources (private and public, domestic and international) will be needed in 2030 to bring greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions back to the current level. About US$ 65 billion of this total will be needed in the developing countries. The investment involves the energy, industry, building, waste, agriculture and forestry sectors.

2. Equality

Widening our understanding of equity does not provide us with a rule for ranking different outcomes, except to say that, other things being equal, a less inequitable outcome is preferable to a more inequitable one. But how should one measure outcomes in terms of equity and what do we do when other things are not equal?

The traditional economic approach to resource allocation has been based on utilitarianism, in which a policy is considered to be desirable if no other policy or action is feasible that yields a higher aggregate utility for society. This requires three underlying assumptions:

(a) All choices are judged in terms of their consequences, and not in terms of the actions they entail.

(b) These choices are valued in terms of the utility they generate to individuals and no attention is paid to the implications of the choices for aspects such as rights, duties etc.

(c) The individual utilities are added up to give the sum of utility for society as a whole. In this way the social welfare evaluation relies on the assumption that there is a net social surplus if the winners can compensate the losers and still be better off themselves. It should be recognized here that philosophers dispute that efficiency is a form of equity.

An alternative approach to allocating resources, which is derived from an ethical perspective and has existed for at least as long as the utilitarian approach described above, is based on the view that social actions are to be judged by whether or not they conform to a ‘social contract’ that defines the rights and duties of individuals in society. In this position, for example, a society may predetermine that an individual has the right to be protected from serious negative health damage as a result of social actions. Hence no action, even if it increased utility, could be tolerated if it violated the rights and duties of individuals.

What implications does this debate have in the context of climate change? One is that rights and capabilities need to be viewed in an international context. An example of an approach based on global equity would be to entitle every individual alive at a given date an equal per capita share in the intrinsic capacity of the earth to absorb GHG. Countries whose total emissions exceeded this aggregate value would then compensate those below the value. In accordance with a utilitarian approach this compensation would be based on an estimate of the aggregate economic welfare lost by countries due to climate change, seen in relation to their own emissions. In contrast, the capability-based approach would argue for reduced capabilities associated with climate change.

For climate change there are many options that need to be evaluated, in terms of their consequences for the lives of individuals who will be impacted by them. It is perfectly reasonable for the policymakers to exclude those that would result in major social disruptions, or large number of deaths, without recourse to a cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Equally, choices that avoid such negative consequences can be regarded as essential, even if the case for them cannot be made on CBA grounds. Details of where such rules should apply and where choices can be left to the more conventional CBA have yet to be worked out, and this remains an urgent part of the agenda for climate change studies.

G．Questions to consider

1) In what way should we trade off the development and environmental demands?

2) How can we ensure an appropriate domestic distribution of finance for mitigation and adaptation of climate change?

3) What kind of mechanism do we need to ensure the responsibility-sharing of both developed and developing countries?

4) What detailed and specific frameworks should be set for international technology transfer and financial aid?

模联大赛:

模联动态

本文网址：http://www.rhhw-zh.com/p/p285.html