Henrik Hasselknippe, Fridtjof Nansen Institute, announced that a report on post-2012 policy scenarios will be published in 2004. He said the report would consider the various regimes emerging from a variety of scenarios. A panel then presented the scenarios.
Hanh Hong Dang, Hamburg Institute for International Economics (HWWA), explained that the "graduation and deepening" model is based on an extension of the existing UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol frameworks. She indicated that each country's commitments would be based on a graduation index, reflecting ability to pay and emissions per capita, and graduation thresholds. She identified the need for further modeling of impacts on global emissions and market prices, the inclusion of other gases, and estimates of sinks and CDM use.
Presenting the market convergence scenario, Kristian Tangen, Fridtjof Nansen Institute, noted that the market convergence scenario entails a bottom-up process that could be executed if the Kyoto Protocol fails. He said such a scenario would link emission trading markets, and provide feedback to UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol processes. He highlighted differences between the market convergence scenario and the Kyoto regime, including negotiations between a small group of members and a sectoral approach to reporting and caps.
Taishi Sugiyama, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI), described the "orchestra of treaties" scenario, and noted the potential stalemate in negotiations for the second commitment period because of adversarial negotiating styles, distrust, loopholes, low carbon prices, and weak incentives for technological change.
He proposed an alternative regime based on the recognition of sovereignty concerns, avoidance of conflicts, enhanced cooperation and long-term technological change. He outlined possible regimes including: cap and trade, a zero emission technology treaty, the climate-wise development treaty and the UNFCCC.
Jiahua Pan, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, described a scenario based on commitment to human development goals combined with low greenhouse gas emissions, noting that carbon emissions should not be viewed as the ultimate goal of a future regime. Stating that this regime would prioritize the satisfaction of basic human needs, he said it would entail voluntary goals, where both developed and developing countries could make commitments, and progressive taxation on carbon could be used as a mechanism. Pan noted that this voluntary approach would be more viable than the Kyoto Protocol in the long-run.
Kevin Baumert, World Resources Institute, expressed hope that a US Congressional bill would be formulated to establish a cap and trade system for greenhouse gas emissions in the US. He noted that if smaller regimes were established, large emitters could become more multilaterally engaged in the future.
Discussion: Participants questioned whether political will was taken into consideration when developing the scenarios and noted that the exchange of ideas on this subject was helpful.