Other Blog Posts

Vale Gaines Morrow Campbell III

The climate movement has lost one of its brightest lights. 

Gaines Morrow Campbell III, co-chair of the Climate Action Network-International Board of Directors for five years, passed away on the Fourth of May, 2014, in Brazil after a lengthy illness. 

Gaines was a long-time climate change specialist at Brazilian NGO Vitae Civilis.  Originally from Philadelphia, in the US, Gaines lived in Brazil for over 30 years. He was an oceanographer and conducted some of the first research around thermal reversal of the Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic in winter, while at the Physical Oceanography Department at Woods Hole Oceangraphic Institution. He lectured on environment and sustainable development issues. 

He campaigned long and hard on environment and development issues, both in Brazil and internationally.  As well as attending almost every UNFCCC session in recent times, he worked with GT Climate FBOMS, Esquel Brazil Foundation, the ANAP - Headwaters Association of Pure Waters (Juquitiba), and the Rotary Club of Juquitiba. He also coordinated  many local boards and committees in Brazil, including a three-term stint as Vice-President of the Ribeira and South Coast Watershed Committee (Bacia Hidrográfica do Ribeira de Iguape e Litoral Sul).

Climate Action Network sends its condolences to Gaines' family and friends throughout the world. We know you are now at rest in a garden as beautiful as your own. 

 

Please feel free to leave your reflections, memories and tributes to Gaines in a comment below. Comments will be manually approved to guard against spam. 

 

 

Side Event Report: Risks and opportunities of different scenarios for integrating climate change into post-2015

Side Event Report: Risks and opportunities of different scenarios for integrating climate change into post-2015
 
Hosted by: CAFOD, CAN International, Beyond2015, UN Millennium Campaign
9 January, 2014

 
French Development Minister—lead UNFCCC negotiator, Pascal Canfin
·      Top priority of the French now because hosting COP21 in Paris in 2015

·      Want to set a positive mood for success in Paris on climate

·      Don’t want to export all the problems and obstacles that are still unsolved in the COP process to the SDG discussion—otherwise counterproductive

·      Discussing SDGs and a new development pattern without discussing climate change is nonsense a

·      At the beginning of the century for the World Bank climate change wasn’t an issue—the issue was how to fight poverty and climate change was out of the scope.  Now they launched a report and 4 degree warming – main threats on food security and other issues is climate change

·      2 dangers in the process-the first is to duplicate and export the UNFCCC problems

·      second danger is to forget about climate in the SDGs

·      Do we want an SDG on climate? French view—the only agreement that we have on climate so far is to keep global warming under 2 degree warming.  If we are able to take this on board and not to open how to make this happen, why not have an objective on climate?

·      If we have a proper objective on climate, which is 2 degree target, there will be targets and indicators on which there is no agreement.  If we go down this line, we are going to export the issues of the UNFCCC

·      The best option: the climate objective of 2 degree in the broad vision of the whole purpose of the SDG process and to see taking this into account what odes it mean to have a world of below 2 degrees warming in terms of transportation, agriculture, urbanization, etc—using the SDG process that gives substance to things outside of the COP process.  Using the complementarity of the process more than the overlapping areas

·      SDG process objective by objective would focus on how to implement the 2 degree objective in terms of cities, agriculture, transportation, energy etc

 
Ronald Jumeau, Climate change Amb to Seychelles

·      Cannot be a successful post-2015 agenda and set of SDGs without successfully tackling climate change

·      A weak climate agreement in 2015 will cripple if not doom attempts to have a truly effective post-2015 framework

·      The SDGs and agenda won’t mean a thing if the SIDS aren’t even around to benefit from them or achieve them

·      There cannot be sustainable development without survival and there can’t be survival without tackling climate change

·      How do we do this without being accused of encroaching on the UNFCCC negotiations?

·      It’s understandable for the people in the post-2015 process to be wary of how climate change can be included in the agenda because of the UNFCCC political issues

·      AOSIS feels that they can’t place all the hopes in the formal negotiations as of now—informal alliance with LDCs on this.  So the climate agreement in 2015 won’t be ambitious enough so there has to be some thinking outside the silos

·      Climate change conference in Durban – approached negotiating partners outside of the formal negotiations to see what countries can do before 2020 to increase mitigation ambition and take urgent and effective action outside of the negotiations themselves? To increase what countries are already doing?

·      No formal obligation to adopt negotiation pledges there already exists a range of policies and technologies that countries are using cost-effectively to reduce emissions – many actions have benefits for adaptation, reducing pollution, fiscal stability and competitiveness etc.  If we can scale up these actions it can help increase ambition in the negotiations

·      Can’t you translate these actions into the formal agreements?

·      Energy—large emissions from fossil fuels –every country in the world seems to have embarked on or a plan/strategy for renewable energy as part of national and collective actions to tackle climate change.

·      Found a willingness with negotiating partners to see how countries can help each other enhance and replicate what countries are already doing or willing to do in transportation, energy, buildings etc

·      We are not waiting for a climate agreement to take action, we are acting now but we need help doing it (MOI). So if we tackle these MOI issues now, it will help the negotiations later. 

·      Would bring in civil society/academia/private and public sector—opens a door for governors and mayors

·      Danger of bringing in the attitudes from the other negotiations into the post-2015 process, but even major emitters which are reluctant to make or increase commitments under the formal process, even they wanted to talk about this.

·      Warsaw decided to accelerate this initiative by launching a technical process on how this could be done. In the UNFCCC process—they are looking at it from a sustainable development angle.

·      Not a question of if it should be done but it should be done.  But how do we do it? Based on AOSIS’ experience on getting people to think outside the siloes. 

 
Olav Kjørven—Special Adviser to the UNDP Administrator on the Post-2015 Development Agenda
·      Strongly agree with Minister when made the point that it is naïve to think that the things that can’t be resolved in the UNFCCC process can be solved in another when many of the same people show up

·      Lots of scope for significant synergy when we go beyond looking at the UNFCCC process in a narrow sense (Workstream 2 in the ADP)

·      Option 4 in the options paper: (based on science), is probably not realistic at this point.  What should it look like if scientific knowledge were to reign supreme. We need to work further on option 4, not because it’s necessarily realistic, but we need to strive for this.

·      Option 3 is interesting to discuss because with the mainstreaming (option 1) and this, it could help things progress – build flexibility in the UNFCCC framework with a placeholder approach

·      Critical to frame the climate related goal language in developmental terms (has to be a about dev and reducing poverty and increasing good conditions for people all over the world)—none of the proposals have so far done this

·      Have to force ourselves to think more about where we want to be in 2030 than where we are now in terms of political realities.

·      Post-2015 agenda really is about where we want to be in 2030 and long term

 
Wael Hmaidan, Director of CAN International:
·      In November OWG session on energy—had a side event for this paper and there was a lot of skepticism, but this week there is more positive energy for the paper and how climate change should be reflected – should really look at this and realize that political will does change

·      Having climate change part of the development agenda is key

·      Ministries of Environment are often in charge of climate change and it doesn’t become very high on the agendas, because it’s not development in that regard.  Having part of the development movement moves it higher up the agenda

·      Want to continue working on a new draft of the paper based on the discussions this week and hopefully finalize a new draft in the next month or so

·      The narrative option is not enough—basically only having climate change in the narrative.  Important to have it in the narrative but not enough.  Helps it not just be an environmental issue to redefine it as a developmental issue

·      Option 1: climate proofing of goals—address climate change in the goals.  What we already sort of have consensus on because most people agree that we cannot have goals without addressing their sustainability and climate change.  Urbanization goal has to address CO2 and GHG emissions.  Lowest common denominator

·      Options 2 -4 for a climate goal. 

·      Options 3: using existing agreements for a goal—keeping 2 degrees warming that’s already been agreed upon by UNFCCC.  Problem with this goal is that the Summit for post-2015 is 7 weeks before COP21 so whatever ends up in the SDGs might not be relevant depending on what comes out of Paris. 

·      Option 4: most ambitious and based on science –provides increased momentum

·      Civil society is looking at a phaseout of GHG emissions goal—doesn’t have to be a year, but a goal provides a vision of how we want society to look like. Includes elements of what the OWG Co-Chairs said about not being threatening etc. How we want to develop towards a future.

 
Frederick D’Souza, Caritas India Director:
·      Different views of climate change – some people believe it’s normal, some believe it’s caused from only natural disasters, and some believe it’s from humans

·      In India see the impacts of climate change

·      For all our needs there is enough—development should be based on a need, not greed. 

 
 
Discussion
·      No risk of losing binding commitments

·      Governments have to come to the UNFCCC and say their positions and try to reach agreement—mandated by the UN that they have to meet and have a legally binding commitment.  Phase-out would be voluntary and a vision and would provide room for growth

·      Planetary boundaries—one is the climate and CO2 but so many issues and not sure that putting them all together would be helpful.  Ex. Oceans, climate and other ones are so interlinked and if climate change alone is creating all this discussion, it would be even worse if you lumped them together

·      SIDS are always out there pushing the envelope and if there’s a way to get away with it, this is out.  AOSIS has never been shy about this stuff.

·      The reason SIDS are pushing the workstream 2 and things outside the formal process is to get stuff done and countries to commit to things in the parallel process and show that they’re already doing it.

Event Invitation: Thinking outside the silos - different scenarios of integrating climate change into post-2015

Thinking outside the silos: different scenarios of integrating climate change into post-2015

Date: 9 January 2014

Time: 1.15-2.30 pm

Location: Conference Room E, UN HQ, New York

This side event during the 7th session of the Open Working Group on SDGs will investigate different options of integrating climate change into the post-2015 framework.

Climate change is an existential threat that will continue to disproportionately affect the poorest and most vulnerable people and places, impacting negatively on those least responsible for the climate crisis. Without addressing the causes
of climate change and all its impacts, comprehensively, goals on eradicating poverty will be ineffective, even in short term, and fail to ensure sustainable development.

During this side event, the panellists will discuss the risks and opportunities of different scenarios for integrating climate change and how this can impact on other UN processes, including the UNFCCC process. A newly published paper
put together with the support of Beyond 2015 and CAN-International, two major global NGO networks involved in climate change and post-2015, will serve as the basis for the discussion. The panel will be followed by questions and
answers from the floor.

Panel
- Pascal Canfin, Minister for Development, France
- Ronald Jean Jumeau, Ambassador, Permanent Mission of the Republic Seychelles to the United Nations
- Olav Kjorven, Special Adviser on post-2015, UNDP (TBC)
- Frederick D’Souza, Director, Caritas India
- Wael Hmaidan, Director, CAN-I

Chair
Corinne Woods, Director, UN MC

This event is supported by the Government of France

Contact: Bernadette Fischler, CAFOD, bfischler@cafod.org.uk

Increase your AMBITION, not your EMISSION

Henriette Imelda
Institute for Essential Services Reform (IESR)

As COP 19 ended, I have to admit that it does not deliver the things that I would expect it to. Some say I probably have more expectations than the others. I have so much faith on the ADP track, as since it was first launched in Durban, I see quite some progress on the process. But then again, the result of the ADP in COP 19 does not really fulfill my expectations, where I’m expecting more clarity on a pathway to increase the ambition in pre-2020 period. The fact is, there is nothing promising in the text; at least not to increase the ambition, but rather it opens more opportunity to increase emission.

The most interesting part is as ADP open-ended consultations were (supposedly) always open for the observers, the fact was all the meetings became partially closed. Partially closed means that the open-ended meetings suddenly closed to observers because of the room capacity. I have never in my life been attending a COP where observers have to stand in line, waiting for their turn to be in an open-ended consultation. Where’s the room for NGO participation then? Probably some Parties just don’t want to be awarded fossil.

Although the results were not as I expected, I still have belief in this multilateral process; that it would finally come up with ambitious and concrete activities that could safeguard the world from the destructions caused by climate change. The current available multilateral process such as the UNFCCC is the only media for the whole countries in the world, to together sit and reflect, to achieve one goal; the ultimate goal of the Convention.

Now that Parties have gone back to their own countries, the battle would be in the domestic work. For developed countries, how to convince the domestic government to put more pledges in terms of finance and emission reductions, despite of the economic crisis or domestic politics that seem not in favor of such ambitious actions (at least this was their greatest worry and excuse of not putting any pledge). But, having concrete actions today, would result in a lower cost of actions for tomorrow, rather than to do that in the next years. Increasing the use of renewable energy as well as energy efficiency measures domestically will be one good and feasible choice to be done by developed countries at this point. Or reforming the existing production side of fossil fuel subsidies, will be a great example. Not only that the money can be used for energy efficiency measures and renewable energy activities to be conducted, but by reforming the fossil fuel subsidies will give more favor to energy efficiency measures as well as the renewable energy activities. Having said that, this will cause emission reductions.

For developing countries, there are so many things that need to be done domestically. Ensuring that there are healthy environment which enables all climate change related activities to be conducted, will be the most important one. Getting the domestic policies to be mainstreamed with the issue of climate change will be one big homework for developing countries.

COP 19 may be over; but the real homework lies in each individual countries. Winning the heart of parliament at home for instance, to get a positive political mandate from the government in the international fora, is definitely the greatest battle of all. But that’s where the ambition should start from; from the political will to achieve the ultimate goal of the Convention, with developed countries as the leading Parties just like what the Convention states.

Related Member Organization: 

Like being in a bandit’s nest!

Ange David Baimey 
Jeunes Volontaires pour l'Environnement Cote d'Ivoire

One wouldn’t be able to deny it anymore, common sense in the international climate negotiations is like kindness in a bandit’s nest. Or how else is it possible to understand that, at a time when Somalia suffered from extreme events and when the Philippines continued to count their many losses, the developed countries and some countries in transitions continued to ignore the never-ending calls from people in danger?

Bad faith is growing within the climate negotiations!

The strategic and economic interests prevail over the lives of people from Nepal, Nigeria or Tanzania, and the desire to not change anything becomes the norm as COPs come and go.

Some (and I’m not one of them) saw the COP in Warsaw just as a step without anything major at stake. A “transition COP” as some said! A warm-up before the big game!

A moment of test, a moment where the developed countries would make a bitter face to dissuade developing countries to raise the bar of their demands and voice stronger recriminations. A step where, from the very first moments, developing countries had to be rebuked in their demands for equity that were seen as a one-way street, and thus as a threat for already meager finances, depleted by economic crises and recessions.

A negotiation strategy that proved to be successful for big emitters, a masterstroke that event left many actors at the end of the Warsaw COP with a feeling of success, when it really was a big failure that opens the door to further failures in Lima and in Le Bourget in 2015.

In fact, this is simple to read and already the picture is getting clearer because, if all the fundaments and principles of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol are questioned, and if the IPCC’s message continues to fall on deaf ears, what else should we expect other than a bis repetita!

All these “déjà vus” continue to endanger the life of over 1 million Africans, to widen already huge gaps and to increase inequalities and social injustice. This lack of will, this this lack of lucidity, this bad faith unfortunately continue to be a shared perspective within the negotiations!

“When will this cycle of endless speeches and discussions end?” I was asked by a woman in a rural community when I came back from Warsaw. My silence was perceived as a wordless expression of my helplessness.

When indeed will the battle for economics, geopolitics and security interests end? When will 195 parties be able to find an agreement that goes beyond their differences in interests?

A Togolese friend told me during the Warsaw COP that according to a say in his village, when one puts calabashes on a stream, they end up touching each other, and then colliding with each other. This means that if 2 entities have to co-exist in a defined space, they will necessarily encounter clashes or conflicts in the course of that co-existence. But the most important thing is to make sure that this co-existence does not lead them to destruction.

This is the great story of multilateralism that we need to save at any cost to not allow all sorts of abuses to prosper and to threaten a peaceful coexistence.

 

Related Member Organization: 

In the search for positiveness

Enrique Maurtua Konstantinidis
Fundación Biosfera
Climate Action Network Latin America (CANLA)

While the final COP plenary was moving ahead with weak outcomes, many parties were leaving the room, and only counterproductive voices were making echo in the room.

Some Latin American countries, those with proactive intentions, those who see a future where everyone takes responsibility within their respective capabilities, were almost silent compared to those who tried to undermine the result of the last part of ADP and later the COP plenary itself.

It is sad to see countries not moving forward, throwing the towel (like we say in my home country). Delegates were definitely tired, we understand that. But CAN has always supported positive actions. We support action for a climate resilient world and that happens only if the ones who care about solid solutions are vocal.

Those Latin American countries who are taking responsibility must use that "moral" right to speak up. Leading by example, leading initiatives, no matter how small the economy is, how small the country itself is. It can always set the tone of conversations.

We keep listening about how weak the ambition is, how low the targets are. And I personally like to ask the innocent question, just like a kid would do: What is there to lose? Why don't you just speak up?

The final plenary had some important moments, some encouraging and some discouraging. That final plenary which started with chants encouraging delegates to give the last effort to the end to win the match of global deals.

There is nothing to lose in the match for a safer future, if others do not join, countries can do it domestically and in the end once we get international agreements, the ones that have done their homework would be ahead in the race to the future, in the race to the better, sustainable  world that we all want. 

Warsaw Wrap-up!

Vositha Wijenayake

Climate Action Network South Asia (CANSA)

 

COP19 came to an end, and most of us were home-bound when it did reach its end. This article is an attempt to sum-up the key elements of what was decided (or not decided) in Warsaw.

 

There were several key decisions taken at the COP in order to facilitate the implementation of the Convention.

 

  1. Mitigation Actions in the Forest Sector[1]

 

A decision was taken in order to provide for coordination of support for the implementation of activities in relation to mitigation actions in the forest sector by developing countries, and this also included institutional arrangements.

 

In this respect, interested Parties were called upon to designate a national entity or focal point to serve as a liaison with the secretariat and the relevant bodies under the Convention, in order to coordinate support for the full implementation of activities and elements referred to in decision 1/CP.16, paragraphs 70, 71 and 73. This also included adopting different policy approaches, and required the secretariat to be informed accordingly. In doing so, the interested Parties were to take into account national circumstances and the principles of sovereignty and noted that these national entities or focal points of the developing country parties could nominate their entities to obtain and receive results-based payments in order to provide them with support for full implementation of the activities.

 

These national entities or focal points, Parties and the relevant entities financing the activities referred to in the decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 70, were encouraged to meeting on a voluntary basis, in conjunction with the first and second sessional period meetings of the subsidiary bodies. In doing so, the participants are allowed to seek input from the relevant bodies established under the Convention, international and regional organizations, the private sector, indigenous peoples and civil society and can invite representatives of these entities to participate as observers in these meetings.

 

Thereafter, the Subsidiary Body for Implementation, at its forty-seventh sessions (November-December 2017) was requested to review the outcomes of these meetings, to consider the existing institutional arrangements or the need for potential governance alternatives for the coordination of support for the implementation of the activities referred to in the decision, and make recommendations on these matters to the COP at its twenty third session (November – December 2017).

 

A decision was also taken to implement a work programme on results based finance in order to progress the full implementation of the activities referred to in decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 70. [2]

 

  1. Response Measures

 

In order to deal with climate change, it is necessary to adopt adequate response measures. However, in developing countries, their priorities are social and economic development and poverty eradication, and the fact is that response measures could have negative environmental, social and economic consequences.

 

In this respect, the decision taken at the 17th Session of COP to establish a forum on the impact of the implementation of response measures to implement the work programme on the impact of the implementation of response measures was reiterated.  This forum had proved useful by providing opportunities to engage in in-forum workshops, an expert meeting and valuable initial discussions by Parties to order to improve the understanding the impact of the implementation of response measures. Therefore, a decision was taken to continue the forum on the impact of the implementation of response measures until 2015. Parties were invited to continue to participate in the forum and in the future, focus is to be placed on the impact of the implementation of response measures on expert input and the provision of concrete examples, case studies and practices so as to assist developing country Parties to deal with the impacts of the implementation of response measures.  The forum is to be convened by the Chairs of the subsidiary bodies to implement the updated work programme on the impact of the implementation of response measures. The updated work programme is to consist of an assessment and analysis of the impacts or response measures and an overview of the progress made at various levels in conducting activities to address the adverse economic and social consequences of response measures on developing countries. In addition to this, the work programme is to also include an opportunity to exchange experience and discuss opportunities for economic diversification and transformation, and to provide a dialogue on what Parties report on actions and impacts related to the implementation of response measures, as well as to share views on the impact of response measures on gender and health. [3]

 

  1. International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with climate change impacts[4]

 

The Warsaw International Mechanism for loss and damage was adopted under the Cancun Adaptation Framework, in order to address the loss and damage associated with the impacts of climate change, including extreme events and slow onset events, in particularly vulnerable developing countries.

 

In this respect, an executive committee was established and this committee is to report annually to the COP through the Subsidiary Body of Scientific Technological Advice and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation and make recommendations as appropriate.

 

The Warsaw International Mechanism’s duties include among others, promoting the implementation of approaches to address loss and damage associated with adverse effects of climate change, and in doing so, will facilitate support of actions to address loss and damage, improve coordination of the relevant work of existing bodies under the Convention, convene necessary meetings and provide technical guidance and support.

 

  1. Climate Finance

 

In order to deal with the need to finance action in respect of climate change, especially in order to address the needs of developing countries in the context of mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, action was taken in order to develop a work programme on long term finance. In this respect, a decision was taken to continue deliberations on long term finance and organize in-session workshops on strategies and approaches to scale up climate finance, cooperation on enhanced enabling environments and on the need to support developing countries. Further, it was also decided to convene a biennial high level ministerial dialogue on climate finance starting in 2014 and ending in 2020. [5]

 

Further decisions in respect of climate finance were taken in respect of the report of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) submitted to the COP and guidance given to the GCF.[6] In terms of the guidance given to the GCF, this Fund was requested to balance the allocation of resources between adaptation and mitigation and ensure appropriate allocation of resources for other activities, to pursue a country-driven approach, and to take into account the urgent and immediate needs of developing countries particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, when allocating resources for adaption.

 

In addition to this, a decision was also taken in respect of arrangements between the COP and the GCF  in order to set out a working relationship between COP and the GCF, to ensure that the GCF is accountable to and functions under the guidance of the COP to support projects, programmers, policies and other activities in developing country Parties. [7]

 

The Global Environment Facility also submitted a report to the COP and guidance was given to this Facility.[8] This report is submitted annually, and in this report, it included information on mitigation impacts. The duties of the Global Environment Facility was further clarified, in order to ensure that there was a clearer approach to co-financing, to ensure that there is adequate and predictable funding and facilitate funding for small island developing States and the least developed countries in order to enable them to address their urgent needs and to comply with their obligations under the Convention.

 

  1. Reporting Information on Activities under the Kyoto Protocol[9]

 

A common reporting format was adopted for the purpose of submitting information on anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks from land use, land-use change and forestry activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4. In addition to this, in providing information in respect of these categories, Parties are to apply the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, as well as IPCC 2013 Revised Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol. Further, in providing information on wetland drainage and rewetting elected activity under Article 3, paragraph 4 of the Kyoto Protocol, the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands is to be applied.

Further, in the annual greenhouse gas inventory report due by 15 April 2015, a specific method was adopted to calculate the greenhouse gas emissions.

 

  1. Clean Development Mechanism[10]

 

The Clean Development Mechanism adopted under the Kyoto Protocol, has been responsible for 7,300 project activities being registered in over 90 countries, with over 1,500 component project activities being included in over 230 programmes of activities registered in over 60 countries.

However, it was noted that participants in the clean development mechanism were facing a difficult market situation and there was a loss of institutional capacity, which threatens the value of the clean development mechanism. In this respect, a decision was adopted to provide guidance in respect of the Clean Development Mechanism. In this respect, measures were adopted to deal with the governance mechanisms and baseline and monitoring methodologies. Further, the guidance also included measures in respect of registration of clean development mechanism project activities and issuance of certified emission reductions, as well as measures to extend the capacity of the scheme to regional and sub regional areas.

 

In addition to this, a decision was also taken to review the modalities and procedures for the clean development mechanism[11]. In doing so, a technical paper is to be prepared by 19th March 2014, on specified issues relating to possible changes to the modalities and procedures for the clean development mechanisms, including their implications, for consideration by the Subsidiary Body for Implementation at its fortieth session (June 2014).

 

  1. Adaption Fund[12]

 

The Adaption Fund was established in order to finance adaptation projects and programmes in developing countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The first commitment period was funded mainly through the share of proceeds from Clean Development Mechanisms project activities, and thereafter, in Doha, in 2012, it was decided that the second commitment period, international emissions trading and joint implementation would also provide 2 percent share of proceeds.

 

The Report of the Adaption Fund Board was submitted and decisions were taken in this respect. The terms and conditions of services to be provided by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank) as trustee for the Adaptation Fund were adopted. It was also decided that an account held in the clean development mechanism registry for the Adaptation Fund will be the recipient of the 2 per cent of proceeds levied in accordance with decision 1/CMP.8, paragraph 21.

 

  1. Implementation of  Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol[13]

 

Article 3 of the Kyoto Protocol, provides for the Parties to the protocol to ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of listed greenhouse gases do not exceed their assigned amounts. In order to implement this, Article 6 provides that any specified Party could transfer to, acquire from, any other such Party emission reduction units resulting from projects aimed at reducing anthropogenic emissions by sources or enhancing anthropogenic removals by sinks of greenhouse gases, subject to certain conditions.

 

In this respect, a decision was taken to provide guidance on the implementation of Article 6 of the Protocol.  In this decision, it stressed the need to improve the joint implementation in contributing to the achievement of the objective of the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol. Further, it requested the Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee to submit elaborated recommendations on the accreditation system for joint implementation aligned with that of the clean development mechanism.

 

(References:  Summary on Warsaw, COP19 by Vidya Nathaniel for Sri Lankan Youth Climate Action Network (SLYCAN))

 
Related Member Organization: 

Global Climate Politics: less instead of more climate protection

Sixbert Simon Mwanga

Climate Action Network - Tanzania

The UN climate change meeting (COP19) was concluded in the city of Warsaw in Poland on 23rd November 2013. Initially the meeting was planned to wind up on 22nd November 2013. Like in many other UN climate change negotiations, COP19 witnessed developed countries acting as last minute brokers to most decisions. This left many delegates from developing countries who had high expectations from this COP for a roadmap to Paris frustrated and angry.

Some even left the national stadium and hotels before final decisions to most important issues.

NGOs and civil society walked out of the meeting hall in protest of the lack of progress in Warsaw. This was followed by shouting “Stop Climate Madness” by activists and civil society who remained into plenary meetings. As said earlier delibarately delaying until the last minute is not new in the UNFCCC talks and no one cares except representatives of the vulnerable countries.

This ever growing culture in the UN’s structure leaves many questions to delegates and civil societies representing already affected communities by climate change. These questions include: why delegates from developed countries push most of decions at the last minute of the negotiations even where there is a possibility to reach consensus earlier? Are they enjoying to make climate decisions alone as they are the main causative? Is this another form of climate change in the UNFCCC negotiations? Is it possible for these countries to show real leadership to address climate change impacts by providing climate finance with 50% on adaptation as well as meeting their emissions reduction commitments? What is the role of the UNFCCC secretariat  in these negotiations, how can it be utilized by whom and when? There is no easy way COP19 can easily forget countries like Australia, India, China, Poland and Japan which are responsible for the weak outcome of the conference.Some even came to decrease their mitigation ambitions while the Polish government welcomed COP delegates in a cynical environment because at the same time a coal conference was held in Warsaw.

Future of Climate Action

Regardless of the discouragements, relatively slow pace and hard time; a successful fight to climate change impacts needs a global partnership. The effective use of the Bonn sessions, Ban Ki-moon summit and COP20 in Lima will help us reach our goal of a strong, equitable international agreement by 2015 in Paris.

 

Tags: 
Related Member Organization: 

Health Tips for Fasting

 

- Speak to your doctor about your plans and make sure to inform them of any relevant medical history.

- Don't overexert yourself. Keep physical activity to a minimum.

- Don’t forget to drink plenty of water - at least 2 liters of water per day, plus herbal tea is a good option. If you feel unwell,  drink a liter of water with 4 cubes of sugar and 4 teaspoons of salt. 

- Consider taking vitamin tablets - a B1 vitamin and a multivitamin tablet that includes B12, B6, C , E vitamins should help

- If you’re feeling extremely tired or you have sight problems, nausea, numbness; seek medical help. 

Intervention at the Post 2015 Open Working Group on Energy

 -        We are concerned to hear some Parties sequencing the energy discussion, saying that we need to ensure energy access before sustainability. Creating an atmosphere of competition between the two. For us it is not the case, and we see them mutually reinforcing. For example, decentralized RE in most cases is the cheapest and most reliable way to provide energy access. Due to future climate impacts, it is not possible to achieve one without the other. Focusing on energy access without addressing carbon emissions will only increase poverty on the long-term due to climate impacts.

-          We are also concerned that there is more and more attempts to rely on the private sector (especially the Fossil Fuel Industry) to lead on the discussions in relation to how to deal with the climate crisis. We believe that governments need to be charge of the debate as well as ensure strong and effective involvement of civil society. Governments need to create the political, economic, and social atmosphere that would direct private and public investments towards sustainable low-carbon development, such as developing LCDS, reforming FFS, creating RE/EE targets, etc.

-          According to the IEA, 2/3 of fossil fuels should not be used, if we want to avoid catastrophic climate impacts. In her speech to the coal industry during the climate summit in Warsaw, Christiana Figueres also confirmed this fact, by informing the industry that the coal needs to stay in the ground.

-          Everyone is saying that the new post-2015 Sustainable Development goals need to be transformational. This means for us that in the energy sector, we need to mostly switch to Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency, especially that RE creates more jobs per kwh in most cases that are healthier and of better quality.

-          RE targets for 2030 need to be in-line with science, and have 5-year sub targets to help bridge the pre-2020 ambition gap.

Pages