@COP17: Is this the day of the deal?

It’s Friday morning, the last day of COP17 (let’s ignore voices suggesting that this event could last till Monday). Ministers and Heads of State have disappeared in the President’s Indaba yesterday and haven’t been seen since. The big question of the day is: Will we get a climate deal today?

Let me venture some risky predictions.

Despite all the bad headlines this week – about the Americans being obstructive, India being unreasonable, South Africa being too transparent, AOSIS being radical, and Canada being outrageously counterproductive, I remain a cautious optimist. I believe there can be a deal, although it probably means that everyone will have to give a little more than they are comfortable with, and everyone will get a little less than they thought they needed to sign a deal.

All the pieces are there and here is one way they could fall into place:

·      2CP KP: The EU agrees to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (KP), which meets the central demand of the developing countries. This move does not cost the Europeans much – their legislation is already aligned with the KP – but they need to live with the fact that Europe is singlehandedly sponsoring the current climate regime for the time being.

o   Length: The 2CP is likely going to be eight years with a mid-term review of the reduction targets that can be fed results from the 2013-2015 Review and the IPCC AR5.

o   Provisional Application: Although nobody seemed to like this legal option to avoid a gap between the first and second commitment periods, I think that’s what they’ll settle on.

·      The Durban Mandate: Everyone (yes, I mean everyone) agrees to a Roadmap towards a new Protocol, to be negotiated between now and 2015, that will establish hard emission reduction targets for all major emitters. This would be BIG, since it would break down all the conceptual, procedural and institutional walls that have stalled progress since 1997, merging the two negotiation tracks and doing away with the Annex I vs. non-Annex I business. My guess is that the legally binding nature of the future agreement – a key condition of the Europeans – will be watered down to an aspiration/political commitment (it is actually not possible for countries to bind themselves legally now to not yet determined obligation in 2015), but that the EU will accept that as long as there is an assurance by the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) to commit to transparent quantified emission reduction targets. Everyone will assume that such a commitment will eventually unlock the political will in the US. Being shamed into action by Chinese ‘leadership’ is not something the Americans will take lightly. And then there is always hope that reason will return to the US Congress.

·      2020: The number that will seriously disappoint the developing countries, especially AOSIS, is 2020. That is when the new deal will be expected to enter into force. In order to assuage the small islands states, who have made a strong case that 2020 is far too late to prevent their states from suffering major damage, the Durban Deal will emphasize that the Review scheduled for 2013-2015 will be conducted by a new body and focus on the global goal (currently limiting global warming to 2 °C ), which allows them to keep pushing for an adjustment of the target to 1.5 °C in the light of the latest scientific findings and the IPCC AR5.

·      Ambition: The number that is truly interesting is the collective mitigation target and target year(s) for both the KP (and eventually the Durban Mandate). My guess is that the KP number will be close to 40% reductions by 2020 – something the Europeans are confident they can achieve and that is fairly consistent with the science.   

·      Green Climate Fund: The GCF will be a significant achievement of COP17. The Europeans will pledge a large amount from public sources to assure the developing world that there will indeed be money to disburse. The Americans will be allowed to include private funding sources, but probably limited to certain share and connected to a public back-up guarantee.

·      The Technical Details: MRV, tech transfer, the Adaptation Committee/Fund, capacity building, CDM & CCS will all be part of the deal.

·      Response measures: This issue can and will be kicked down the road. I am afraid, so will REDD+.

Four pieces were crucial to get us to the place where a deal is in reach:

1.     The EU making a credible threat that they would not support a 2CP without a collective, credible commitment to a new legal agreement for all countries (this raised the pressure on the BASIC countries and Umbrella Group members),

2.     The EU giving a nod to India, acknowledging that per capita emissions are an important indicator for determining each party’s share of the mitigation burden (appeasing India’s concerns and dividing India and the rest of the BASIC countries),

3.     China becoming making some vague noises about the possibility of agreeing to a legally binding treaty in the coming years (that pushed the US hard to respond and not be seen as the last obstructive party around the table),

4.     AOSIS pressing everyone to close the mitigation ambition gap, using the latest science and UNEP report to make the case for increasing and legalizing emission reduction targets.

The conditions are right and time is running out. Let’s get it done!