Development
p
and CC Challenge
g
Preposition:
More than any other MEA
MEA, the KP and the post
post-2012
2012
outcome, would have the greatest adverse impact on all
economies, and in particular developing countries. It would
require all countries to modify primary economic structures,
including
c ud g adjus
adjustments/transformations
e s/ a s o a o s within their
e e
energy,
e gy,
transportation, manufacturing and investment sectors.
As such, there is no incentive whatsoever for developing
countries to further prejudice their development prerogatives
by accepting or agreeing to any import restrictive measures
Talk/Threat of border restrictions will only distract and create
unfavourable climate for international cooperation in
UNFCCC
Development and CC Challenge
Gi UNFCCC Process
Give
P
a Chance!!!
Ch
!!!
•
Give UNFCCC process a chance -
Parties have just began tabling textual proposals
•
Talk/Threat of border measures
meas res at this stage unhelpful
nhelpf l to facilitating progress in the CC
negotiations; G77 has voiced strong views against such import restrictions
•
A former developed country trade minister - CC-related import restrictions - “blunt
instruments of fear – rather than one of persuasion, that will take us down a dangerous
path .
path"
•
DG Pascal Lamy
- Consensual Accord on Climate Change is needed
- Coercion on developing countries will mess negotiations
-Only a multilateral agreement based on recognized principles of international law, such as
CBDR, including all major emitters would successfully level the playing field,
- Spaghetti
S
h tti b
bowll off offsetting
ff tti measures achieves
hi
neither
ith trade
t d nor environmental
i
t l goals
l
•
Don’t Do It!!! Danger of Retaliatory Actions, Benefits No one, including CC!!! All will lose!!!
•
Be true to the spirit
p
and letter of the Convention and KP - Parties to reduce/ p
phase out
market distortions, and implement CC policies in such as way to "minimise adverse effects
on international trade".
Development and CC Challenge
Recognising Development Concerns and National Circumstances
•
Back to basics – what is the objective of CC negotiations?
(Stabilize levels of CC in the atmosphere!!! – Not to combat emissions leakage)
(Talk/Threat of border restrictions will only distract and create unfavourable climate for international
cooperation in UNFCCC)
•
For CC negotiations to succeed- Fair & equitable outcome on all 4 pillars of the Bali Action Plan, ie. Mitigation, Adaptation, Finance,
Technology
- Post-2012 outcome should respect the current structure of Convention, including CBDR, capabilities,
national circumstances, alternative-energy disadvantaged countries
- Trade Minister from a major developing country - CC negotiators need to focus on carrots and not
sticks to encourage developing countries to move on CC issues.
- Unilateral Voluntary actions by developing countries should be recognized and credits given.
- Contemplate GATS type flexible bottom-up model development friendly for developing countries, with
phase-ins, pre-commitment for implementation later etc.
•
Some Agreement, Better than None!!! Copenhagen probably cant solve all CC issues. A point, an
important one, in the continuum
Development and CC Challenge
WTO T d Can
WTO-Trade
C Contribute
C t ib t
•
WTO/DDA/Trade Openness can contribute to Development
Aspirations and CC efforts
•
The DDA negotiations (eg. on environmental goods and services)
p
access for climate friendly
yg
goods and
offers avenue for expanded
services
•
Complimentary initiatives in other fora, eg. Good Regulatory
Principles to address behind
behind-the-border
the border measures in APEC
•
Like the WTO, the Convention/KP specifically seek to achieve CC
j
through
g open
p markets. So should the Post-2012 Outcome
objectives
•
Give UNFCCC process a Chance!!!