Differentiation is in the air

The post-Copenhagen vogue has been all about self-differentiation. Everyone wants to talk about it! This is good news, because if we don’t differentiate contributions and rules and get trapped in pure self-differentiation, we’ll lack the overdue ambition needed to tackle climate change .

But we’ll need to become a lot clearer about the differentiation challenge. So what is needed now? Let’s start with top-down elements – e.g. equity based comparative review and ratcheting – integrated in the Paris agreement. To that end, ECO raises the following three questions:

1) How do we differentiate?

The old binary distinction between “developed” and “developing” countries is unacceptable to (ahem) developed countries. Meanwhile, developing countries will not accept a new accord without a distinction between groups of countries.

So, what to do? Ideas are flying! We have Brazil’s “concentric circles” proposal and South’s Africa’s equity reference framework. There’s also America’s rather tongue-in-cheek suggestion for a formulation in which emissions and economic indicators are used to define dynamic groups called “Annex X” and “Annex Y”. Then there’s Ethiopia with their different formulation of dynamic annexes, based on per capita GHG and GDP indicators. And just about everyone’s future features “cycles.”

2) Which rules should apply to which groups?

The rules of participation and responsibility are not expected to be the same for all groups. The MRV rules will differ according to groups, and so will plenty of other things.

3) How do we define equitable shares?

A positive cycle of increasing ambition requires an equitable regime. Grouping countries is insufficient because it won’t define national “fair shares” in the common effort to stabilise the climate system. You already know our five equity indicators: adequacy, responsibility, capability, adaptation need and development need. South Africa’s equity reference framework and India’s recent “Section K” suggestion on differentiation are not too different.

So, it’s clear that with Valentine’s Day around the corner, it’s not just love in the air — differentiation is in the air too. Now we need agreement on differentiation that’s fair and robust enough for COP21, while opening the door for improvement and strengthening in the years after it. By June we need helpful results. This should pave the way for a common understanding of differentiation in Paris that supports an ever improving review and ratcheting system.