United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

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",[13] and further discussions at later conferences led to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The Kyoto Protocol was concluded and established legally binding obligations under international law, for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the period 2008–2012.[4] The 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference produced an agreement stating that future global warming should be limited to below 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) relative to the pre-industrial level.[14]

The Kyoto Protocol has had two commitment periods, the first of which lasted from 2008–2012. The Protocol was amended in 2012 to encompass the second one for the period 2013–2020 in the Doha Amendment.[15]

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 submitted annually by Annex I countries.

The US has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, while Canada denounced it in 2012. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by all the other Annex I Parties.

All Annex I Parties, excluding the US, have participated in the 1st Kyoto commitment period. 37 Annex I countries and the EU have agreed to second-round Kyoto targets. These countries are Australia, all members of the European Union, Belarus, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine.[16] 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.[17] 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)[18] and the United States.

All countries that remained parties to the Kyoto Protocol are in full compliance with their first commitment period targets.[19]

The parties met in Durban, South Africa, in 2011 expressing "grave concern" that efforts to limit global warming to less than 2 or 1.5 °C, relative to the pre-industrial level, appeared inadequate.[20] They committed to develop an "agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties".[21]

At the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris the then-196 parties agreed to aim to limit global warming to less than two degrees Celsius, and try to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius.[22][15] This Paris Agreement entered into force on 4 November 2016.

At the 19th session of the Conference of the Parties in Warsaw in 2013, the UNFCCC created a mechanism for Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) to be submitted in the run up to the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties in Paris (COP21) in 2015.[23] Countries were given freedom and flexibility to ensure these climate change mitigation and adaptation plans were nationally appropriate;[24] this flexibility, especially regarding the types of actions to be undertook, allowed for developing countries to tailor their plans to their specific adaptation and mitigation needs, as well as towards other needs.

A "family photo" organized by Greenpeace, at the entrance to the United Nations, with a banner reading "We Will Move Ahead"

In the aftermath of COP21, these INDCs became Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) when a country ratified the Paris Agreement, unless a new NDC was submitted to the UNFCCC at the same time.[25] The 22nd session of the Conference of the Parties (COP22) in Marrakesh focused on these Nationally Determined Contributions and their implementation, after the Paris Agreement entered into force on 4 November 2016.[26]

The Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) created a guide for NDC implementation, for the use of decision makers in Less Developed Countries. In this guide, CDKN identified a series of common challenges countries face in NDC implementation, including how to:

• build awareness of the need for, and benefits of, action among stakeholders, including key government ministries
• mainstream and integrate climate change into national planning and development processes
• strengthen the links between subnational and national government plans on climate change
• build capacity to analyse, develop and implement climate policy
• establish a mandate for coordinating actions around NDCs and driving their implementation
• address resource constraints for developing and implementing climate change policy.[27]

In addition to the Kyoto Protocol (and its amendment) and the Paris Agreement, parties to the Convention have agreed to further commitments during UNFCCC Conferences of the Parties. These include the Bali Action Plan (2007),[28] the Copenhagen Accord (2009),[29] the Cancún agreements (2010),[30] and the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (2012).[31]

Bali Action Plan

As part of the Bali Action Plan, adopted in 2007, all developed country Parties have agreed to "quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives, while ensuring the comparability of efforts among them, taking into account differences in their national circumstances."[32] Developing country Parties agreed to "[nationally] appropriate mitigation actions [NAMAs] context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner."[32] 42 developed countries have submitted mitigation targets to the UNFCCC secretariat,[33] as have 57 developing countries and the African Group (a group of countries within the UN).[34]

Copenhagen Accord and Cancún agreements

As part of the 2009 Copenhagen negotiations, a number of countries produced the Copenhagen Accord.[29] The Accord states that global warming should be limited to below 2.0 °C (3.6 °F).[29] This may be strengthened in 2015 with a target to limit warming to below 1.5 °C.[35] The Accord does not specify what the baseline is for these temperature targets (e.g., relative to pre-industrial or 1990 temperatures). According to the UNFCCC, these targets are relative to pre-industrial temperatures.[36]

114 countries agreed to the Accord.[29] The UNFCCC secretariat notes that "Some Parties ... stated in their communications to the secretariat specific understandings on the nature of the Accord and related matters, based on which they have agreed to [the Accord]." The Accord was not formally adopted by the Conference of the Parties. Instead, the COP "took note of the Copenhagen Accord."[29]

As part of the Accord, 17 developed country Parties and the EU-27 have submitted mitigation targets,[37] as have 45 developing country Parties.[38] Some developing country Parties have noted the need for international support in their plans.

As part of the Cancún agreements, developed and developing countries have submitted mitigation plans to the UNFCCC.[39][40] These plans are compiled with those made as part of the Bali Action Plan.

Developing countries

At Berlin,[41] Cancún,[42] and Durban,[43] the development needs of developing country parties were reiterated. For example, the Durban Platform reaffirms that:[43]

[...] social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing country Parties, and that a low-emission development strategy is central to sustainable development, and that the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs.

The ultimate objective of the Framework Convention is to "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [i.e., human-caused] interference with the climate system".[5] As is stated in the article 2 of the convention, this "should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner".[5]

• 
  Climate change mitigation scenarios: projected global greenhouse gas emissions, years 2000 to 2100
• 
  Climate change mitigation scenarios: projected changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, years 2000 to 2100
• 
  Climate change mitigation scenarios: projected global mean temperature, years 2000 to 2100

To stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations, global anthropogenic GHG emissions would need to peak then decline (see climate change mitigation).[44] Lower stabilization levels would require emissions to peak and decline earlier compared to higher stabilization levels.[44] The graph above shows projected changes in annual global GHG emissions (measured in CO₂-equivalents) for various stabilization scenarios. The other two graphs show the associated changes in atmospheric GHG concentrations (in CO₂-equivalents) and global mean temperature for these scenarios. Lower stabilization levels are associated with lower magnitudes of global warming compared to higher stabilization levels.[44]

Projected global warming in 2100 for a range of emission scenarios

There is uncertainty over how GHG concentrations and global temperatures will change in response to anthropogenic emissions (see climate change feedback and climate sensitivity).[45] The graph opposite shows global temperature changes in the year 2100 for a range of emission scenarios, including uncertainty estimates.

Dangerous anthropogenic interference

There are a range of views over what level of climate change is dangerous.[46] Scientific analysis can provide information on the risks of climate change, but deciding which risks are dangerous requires value judgements.[47]

The global warming that has already occurred poses a risk to some human and natural systems (e.g., coral reefs).[48] Higher magnitudes of global warming will generally increase the risk of negative impacts.[49] According to Field et al. (2014),[49] climate change risks are "considerable" with 1 to 2 °C of global warming, relative to pre-industrial levels. 4 °C warming would lead to significantly increased risks, with potential impacts including widespread loss of biodiversity and reduced global and regional food security.[49]

Climate change policies may lead to costs that are relevant to the article 2.[47] For example, more stringent policies to control GHG emissions may reduce the risk of more severe climate change, but may also be more expensive to implement.[49][50][51]

Projections

There is considerable uncertainty over future changes in anthropogenic GHG emissions, atmospheric GHG concentrations, and associated climate change.[45][52][53] Without mitigation policies, increased energy demand and extensive use of fossil fuels[54] could lead to global warming (in 2100) of 3.7 to 4.8 °C relative to pre-industrial levels (2.5 to 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).[55]

To have a likely chance of limiting global warming (in 2100) to below 2 °C, GHG concentrations would need to be limited to around 450 ppm CO₂-eq.[56] The current trajectory of global emissions does not appear to be consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C.[57]

In decision making, the precautionary principle is considered when possibly dangerous, irreversible, or catastrophic events are identified, but scientific evaluation of the potential damage is not sufficiently certain (Toth et al., 2001, pp. 655–656).[58] The precautionary principle implies an emphasis on the need to prevent such adverse effects.

Uncertainty is associated with each link of the causal chain of climate change. For example, future GHG emissions are uncertain, as are climate change damages. However, following the precautionary principle, uncertainty is not a reason for inaction, and this is acknowledged in Article 3.3 of the UNFCCC (Toth et al., 2001, p. 656).[58]

Parties to the UNFCCC are classified as:

• Annex I: There are 43 Parties to the UNFCCC listed in Annex I of the convention, including the European Union.[61] These Parties are classified as industrialized (developed) countries and "economies in transition" (EITs).[62] The 14 EITs are the former centrally-planned (Soviet) economies of Russia and Eastern Europe.[63]
• Annex II: Of the Parties listed in Annex I of the convention, 24 are also listed in Annex II of the convention, including the European Union.[64] These Parties are made up of members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): these Parties consist of the members of the OECD in 1992, minus Turkey, plus the EU. 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).[62]
• 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.[65] The amendments have not entered into force.
• Least-developed countries (LDCs): 49 Parties are LDCs, and are given special status under the treaty in view of their limited capacity to adapt to the effects of climate change.[62]
• Non-Annex I: Parties to the UNFCCC not listed in Annex I of the convention are mostly low-income[66] developing countries.[62] Developing countries may volunteer to become Annex I countries when they are sufficiently developed.

There are 43 Annex I Parties including the European Union.[61] These countries are classified as industrialized countries and economies in transition.[62] Of these, 24 are Annex II Parties, including the European Union,[64] and 14 are Economies in Transition.[63]

Parties: Annexes, EU, OECD, EITs.[67]

Notes

The overall umbrella and processes of the UNFCCC and the adopted Kyoto Protocol have been criticized by some as not having achieved their stated goals of reducing the emission of carbon dioxide (the primary culprit blamed for rising global temperatures of the 21st century).[7] At a speech given at his alma mater, Todd Stern — the US Climate Change envoy — has expressed the challenges with the UNFCCC process as follows: "Climate change is not a conventional environmental issue ... It implicates virtually every aspect of a state's economy, so it makes countries nervous about growth and development. This is an economic issue every bit as it is an environmental one." He went on to explain that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is a multilateral body concerned with climate change and can be an inefficient system for enacting international policy. Because the framework system includes over 190 countries and because negotiations are governed by consensus, small groups of countries can often block progress.[76]

The failure to achieve meaningful progress and reach effective CO2-reducing policy treaties among the parties over the past eighteen years has driven some countries like the United States to hold back from ratifying the UNFCCC's most important agreement — the Kyoto Protocol — in large part because the treaty did not cover developing countries which now include the largest CO2 emitters. However, this failed to take into account both the historical responsibility for climate change since industrialisation, which is a contentious issue in the talks, and also responsibility for emissions from consumption and importation of goods.[77] It has also led Canada to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol in 2011 out of a wish not to make its citizens pay penalties that would result in wealth transfers out of Canada.[78] Both the US and Canada are looking at internal Voluntary Emissions Reduction schemes to curb carbon dioxide emissions outside the Kyoto Protocol.[79]

The perceived lack of progress has also led some countries to seek and focus on alternative high-value activities like the creation of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants which seeks to regulate short-lived pollutants such as methane, black carbon and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which together are believed to account for up to 1/3 of current global warming but whose regulation is not as fraught with wide economic impacts and opposition.[80]

In 2010, Japan stated that it will not sign up to a second Kyoto term, because it would impose restrictions on it not faced by its main economic competitors, China, India and Indonesia.[81] A similar indication was given by the Prime Minister of New Zealand in November 2012.[82] At the 2012 conference, last-minute objections at the conference by Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan were ignored by the governing officials, and they have indicated that they will likely withdraw or not ratify the treaty.[83] These defections place additional pressures on the UNFCCC process that is seen by some as cumbersome and expensive: in the UK alone, the climate change department has taken over 3,000 flights in two years at a cost of over £1,300,000 (British pounds sterling).[84]

Before the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, National Geographic Magazine added to the criticism, writing: "Since 1992, when the world's nations agreed at Rio de Janeiro to avoid 'dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,' they've met 20 times without moving the needle on carbon emissions. In that interval we've added almost as much carbon to the atmosphere as we did in the previous century."[85]

Benchmarking is the setting of a policy target based on some frame of reference.[86] An example of benchmarking is the UNFCCC's original target of Annex I Parties limiting their greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Goldemberg et al. (1996)[87] commented on the economic implications of this target. Although the target applies equally to all Annex I Parties, the economic costs of meeting the target would likely vary between Parties. For example, countries with initially high levels of energy efficiency might find it more costly to meet the target than countries with lower levels of energy efficiency. From this perspective, the UNFCCC target could be viewed as inequitable, i.e., unfair.

Benchmarking has also been discussed in relation to the first-round emissions targets specified in the Kyoto Protocol (see views on the Kyoto Protocol and Kyoto Protocol and government action).

Academics and environmentalists criticize the article 3(5) of the convention, which states that any climate measures that would restrict international trade should be avoided.