Munich Economic Summit
Friday, 29 May 2009
Henning Wuester
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Introduction
Under a business as usual scenario, greenhouse gas emissions
would go up by more than 50% by mid-century, instead of down by more than
50% as required by science. To avoid the dire consequences associated with
accelerating climate change that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) predicts, Copenhagen must be a success. And it can be a success!
In order to understand how climate change can be tackled, the issue has to
be approached as a development issue. Merely looking at the direct costs of
mitigation and the direct impacts of climate change falls short of capturing
all necessary aspects. A global climate change agreement will have to build
on the growth and development aspirations of countries and capture the wider
benefits of transforming energy systems, protecting forests, and making economies
more resilient to climate variability, to name just a few.²
Copenhagen can deliver major policy impetus to shift the world economy onto
a sustainable pathway - to initiate a “green transformation”. I
see four political essentials for Copenhagen to be a success. These are closely
interrelated, and none of the four can be achieved without the other three.
1. Ambitious mid-term targets for industrialized countries
Global cooperation on climate change is only possible with the leadership
by industrialized countries. This is due to the historic responsibility of
the industrialized world and because they are still today highest emitters
in per capita terms, but it is also necessary in order to spur the market
formation and the technology developments that are required for a global economic
transformation.
A reduction of 25-40% by 2020 based on 1990 levels is the point of reference.
Most developed countries have put pledges on the table, others are still coming.
Overall, the level of ambition is not yet high enough.
2. Enhanced mitigation action by developing countries
It is important to note that developing countries are already doing a lot.
The five major developing countries (China, Brazil, India, Mexico and South
Africa) have all adopted national climate change plans and some of them include
very ambitious targets. And, they are ready to do more if there is international
support.
Within the UNFCCC negotiations, the concept of nationally appropriate mitigation
action (NAMA) by developing countries is at the centre of attention. A NAMA
registry is being discussed as one of the options to record specific action
proposals and match them with international support in the form of finance,
technology or capacity building. Examples of NAMAs could be: energy efficiency
targets; increasing shares of renewable energy; or projects to reduce emissions
from deforestation and forest degradation. A wide range of actions is feasible
as long as the action is measurable, reportable and verifiable.
3. Scaling up resources available to address climate change
The UNFCCC secretariat has estimated that several tens of billions of US dollars
will needed for adaptation in 2030, and more than 200 billion US dollars annually
by 2030 will be required for mitigation. There will be a gradually growing
need of financial flows between now and 2030. Initially, a large share of
this has to come from public funding, and public funding requirements will
remain high for adaptation. But for mitigation, over 80% is estimated to come
from private sources by 2030. This clearly highlights the need for a functioning
carbon market and other mechanisms to provide the right incentives for the
private sector, including for technology development and diffusion.
4. Need for an adequate institutional set-up, in particular the right governance
structures To manage global cooperation on climate change and leverage action
by the private sector, effective institutional structures have to be set up.
Politically, there a Copenhagen requires agreement on governance structures
that are founded on equity and respect developing countries’ interest.
This requires breaking out of traditional donor-dominated governance. One
option may be to build on existing financial institutions but ensure that
all developing countries have their say on how funds are used through institutions
established under the climate change Convention.
Some concluding points:
- Copenhagen can turn climate change into an opportunity for green growth and sustainable development, if agreement is reached on the emission and the finance side.
- Industrialized countries must continue to play a leadership role to make this happen, both in terms of emission reductions and on finance.
- The EU has doing its part on the emission reduction side. But it has
not yet taken the necessary decisions on finance and there is an urgent
need for a positive signal from EU to advance global negotiations.
1) The views are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the UNFCCC.
2) This is also the aspect where Professor Carraro’s analysis in my view
falls short of encapsulating all key aspects of a global deal. Including a
wider range of benefits into the analysis might change the results in support
of the feasibility of a more ambitious global mitigation strategy.
