Blog Posts

Adaptation Fund: Progressive But Poor!

Submitted by rvoorhaar on May 2, 2013 - 12:41am

ECO would like to cast a bright light on whether there is sufficient progress in responding to the needs of the poor and vulnerable at an implementation level. We note that the Adaptation Fund is now established. It has approved funding for 27 adaptation projects with several projects more waiting to be funded. Furthermore, we see that 15 developing countries have already had their National Implementing Entities accredited and can directly access the Fund, and several more countries are in the process of accreditation.

ECO also recognises that the Adaptation Fund has become a forerunner, having recently been ranked as the top climate finance institution by Publish What You Fund: the Global Campaign for Aid Transparency. Just two weeks ago it became the first climate fund in the International Aid Transparency Initiative. It has also been an early-mover in adopting an overarching results framework. The Fund has managed to speed up the project approval process while reducing implementing entities´ fees.

ECO wonders why, with such accomplishments, the Adaptation Fund is the one multilateral fund that has received the least contributions from developed countries in recent years. And to make matters worse, the price for emission reduction certificates (the key income source of the Fund) is now below US$1, largely due to the virtual collapse of the European Emission Trading Scheme. At current CER prices and estimated issuance levels, the Adaptation Fund would receive only $4 to $8 million in additional revenue to 2020.

ECO is concerned that there has hardly been any progress in delivering the Fund’s target of $100 million by the end of 2013. There are no new pledges and funding seems to be scarce. ECO calls on Parties to send a strong signal that they are committed to addressing the needs of the vulnerable developing countries by putting additional money into the Fund swiftly.

ECO particularly would like to see countries like Japan, Norway, France, Finland, Netherlands, New Zealand, USA, Canada and others, who have not as yet contributed to the Fund, to do so immediately. Australia´s 2010 pledge has still not been deposited. ECO finds it ironic that Germany, the host of the Adaptation Fund, has only made one pledge of 10 million EUR in 2010, which is much lower than that of Spain and Sweden.

Tags:

Topics:

Region:

Related Event:

ADP Second Session 2013

rvoorhaar's blog

Closing the Gap On Aviation and Shipping

Submitted by rvoorhaar on May 2, 2013 - 12:38am

This is the year for a fresh start in addressing emissions from aviation and maritime transport – those uniquely international sectors that have generated so much discussion and so little action over the years.

This year, the Assemblies, the highest bodies of both the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) are meeting for the last time before 2015. This will be their chance to make progress on these fast-growing sectors in the pre-2020 period, including by putting a price on emissions from ships and aircraft.

These sectors can make an important contribution to closing the gigatonne gap, both in the period up to 2020 and beyond. These sectors, which account for around 5% of global CO2 emissions, can contribute reductions of up to 0.5 GtCO2e. But perhaps more importantly, decisive progress in addressing these emissions can restore confidence in our multilateral institutions and demonstrate the collective global political will needed to make the transformative steps necessary to prevent a climate disaster.

What’s more, we cannot pass up the chance to use carbon pricing from these sectors as an innovative source of reliable and stable public climate finance for actions in developing countries, and in the sectors themselves, to supplement contributions from the budgets of developed countries.

A decision on a global approach to carbon pricing on aviation this year is critical. The ICAO Council has created a High Level Group on Climate Change to unlock progress and give political impetus to this discussion, in advance of the September ICAO Assembly. The Council meeting coming up later this month will be the best opportunity to assess progress in the High Level Group and find agreement on a comprehensive global approach that includes carbon pricing for international aviation emissions.

On maritime transport, the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee will also meet later this month and is likely to resume discussions of options to put a price on emissions. Decisions need to be taken that create a clear roadmap to reach an agreement on carbon pricing.

Finally, to ensure these sectors make their fair contribution to global mitigation and financing efforts, the ADP needs to put emissions from international transport firmly on its agenda in both Workstreams, and send the signal to the IMO and ICAO that action is expected in 2013.

In all of these fora, the key to progress is finding creative ways of addressing equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in workable ways appropriate to these inherently international sectors. Concerns from both developed and developing countries about setting precedents for other sectors can and should be addressed. After all, the uniquely international nature of maritime transport and aviation requires approaches tailor-made to these sectors, which cannot be seen as precedents for other sectors where emissions occur entirely on national territory.

Tags:

bunkers

ADP2

Topics:

Bunkers

Related Event:

ADP Second Session 2013

rvoorhaar's blog

ADaPtation Is Important!

Submitted by rvoorhaar on May 2, 2013 - 12:35am

ECO listened carefully to yesterday’s roundtable on adaptation. The roundtable discussions brought forward new ideas and thinking on how adaptation can move ahead in the 2015 agreement in a way that adequately addresses escalating climate impacts.

There seems to be consensus that adaptation will be a key pillar of the 2015 UNFCCC agreement. Additionally, many Parties acknowledge that there cannot be a trade-off between mitigation and adaptation, and that without sufficient mitigation, many adaptation efforts will not be enough to cope with mounting impacts, and substantial loss and damage will thus be unavoidable. While these statements are welcome, ECO asks whether Parties will really deliver the required paradigm shift towards climate resilient development.

We are starting to see some “out of the box” thinking, and a recognition that the 2015 agreement provides additional impetus for action. As the delegate from Uganda so eloquently stated, 2015 needs to mark a watershed for implementation – building, strengthening and fully putting into practice the institutions launched in Cancun.

Ideas from delegates included the possibility of a global benchmark or goal for adaptation, as well as the need to stir up action by other international and regional processes on adaptation. The Marshall Islands set out how national legislative action on adaptation could be counted towards developing country commitments under the ADP (ECO of course assumes that these could not be traded against legally-binding mitigation commitments). ECO was also pleased to hear several countries clearly state that they expect a loss and damage mechanism under the 2015 agreement.

ECO agrees that the ADP negotiations need to build on the work of recent years. Good working relationships between the SBs and the Adaptation Committee will be crucial. But building on the existing landscape should not be confused with business as usual. The 2015 agreement needs to harvest and catalyse the political will needed to bring existing commitments and institutions to where they need to be, including through substantially scaled-up public finance for adaptation.

ECO looks forward to further inspiration, ideas and critical reflection by delegates in the ADaPtation negotiations.

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

ADP Second Session 2013

rvoorhaar's blog

Get Smart About PaperSmart

Submitted by rvoorhaar on May 2, 2013 - 12:32am

ECO looks forward to contributing to the success of the Warsaw COP and rejoices at being able to play its part once again contributing to the acuteness of the discussions. Since time immemorial (or maybe it just feels that way), ECO has tried to enrich each negotiating session. We look forward to a PaperSmart conference, but hopefully not so "smart" as to prevent ECO's opinions and insights from reaching delegates searching for inspiration.

Tags:

NGO participation

papersmart

Topics:

NGO Participation

Related Event:

ADP Second Session 2013

rvoorhaar's blog

Only Fools DON’T Rush In (to a Low-Carbon Future)!

Submitted by rvoorhaar on May 1, 2013 - 12:31am

Sometimes in life it pays to be contemplative. One should do one’s research before buying a house (who wants to live in a flood zone made more vulnerable by climate change?) or getting married (imagine if s/he is secretly a climate sceptic or a bottom-up advocate!) or starting a family (OK, so maybe that doesn’t always happen, but you get ECO’s point). Considering options to increase the level of ambition, however, is NOT one of those issues. The options are clear. The task now is their immediate implementation.

The workshop on enhancing near-term ambition did highlight that many countries are moving forward with a wide variety of mitigation initiatives. This is very good. However, as we know, it is not enough. ECO was also pleased to see a number of countries referring to some very good ways to increase ambition, ranging from upping their pledges, to phasing out HFCs or fossil fuel subsidies, to reducing black carbon, enhancing energy efficiency, protecting our forests or addressing the emissions from international bunkers (hello ICAO assembly in September!). What upsets ECO is that countries have been talking about these options for a long time. ECO cannot imagine having to continue to talk about them all the way to Warsaw (and possibly beyond). It is time to get into the details of implementation – as the Marshall Islands put it, the “nuts and bolts” – so that, by the time the Warsaw COP comes around, countries are taking concrete decisions attached to tangible emissions reductions.

ECO thought it would be useful, albeit possibly repetitive, to outline what some of those concrete measures would be:

Increase those targets: EU 30%, Australia 25%, the USA – well if you agreed with so much of the discussion ECO is sure implementing those ideas can get you beyond 3%...
Announce new pledges – now that the pressure is off for our COP President and its friends, let’s formalise and build on the announcements made in Qatar. ECO is happy to help with press conferences and the like.
Start drafting that COP decision proposed by the EU to call on the Montreal Protocol to get its act together on HFCs.
Call your colleagues working with ICAO and get them prepared to commit in September.
Implement programs to address the upfront costs of renewables in order to enhance their deployment (so UK – do we have a date for the June session? ☺ )
Call your friends at the World Bank and get them to shift investment patterns to renewable energy and energy efficiency; the World Bank (like ECO) is adamant that we must avoid a 4°C world, and yet as Mali and Senegal highlighted, finance for low-carbon options identified in a country’s low-carbon plan is not always there, leaving emissions-intensive development as the default. This leads well into the next point.
SHOW US THE MONEY. That is to say, high-income countries need to support developing countries, who can do more, with more. It really is that simple.

With the numerous win-win opportunities discussed today, only fools wouldn’t rush in to a safe, clean, low-carbon future.

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

ADP Second Session 2013

rvoorhaar's blog

Get To Work(shop)!

Submitted by rvoorhaar on May 1, 2013 - 12:29am

ECO is getting worked up by these workshops. On Monday, we heard several distinguished delegates mention the importance of participation. Well, ECO would like to raise your participation and call for interaction!

OK, so we’re being deliberately obtuse about what the distinguished delegate was referring to. Our “friends” from the brollies were actually setting up a dangerous dichotomy between participation and ambition, which is totally unacceptable. But for the moment ECO will let that pass (although you know we’ll come back to it!).

What surprised ECO was the re-articulation of well established positions in the initial workshop on scope and design. This is deeply disappointing. ECO urges parties to be brave; put creative ideas forward. Some will get flattened (like that frog!) but some will permeate. If you don’t ask you don’t get. ECO understands that years of disharmony make Parties nervous about revealing some of their thinking, but this is your time to shine. This is the year of conceptual ideas: we’re facing an unprecedented challenge, one that requires an unprecedented response. And in this new (to us), bright and transparent building, what better surroundings could there be for a more frank and visionary discussion?

We only have a few days here in Bonn, and ECO hopes that Parties have just been warming up before heading to the gym (i.e. Maritim). We hope to see you properly working out with each other over the course of this week's workshops; we want to see blood, sweat and tears!

Tags:

ADP2

Related Event:

ADP Second Session 2013

rvoorhaar's blog

On Equity: Part 1

Submitted by rvoorhaar on April 30, 2013 - 12:55am

ECO was positively surprised, during yesterday's ADP2 opening and the following workshop, hearing Parties expressing the fact that equity can't be neglected in the negotiations – a viewpoint that ECO shared long ago. Now that ECO and Parties have this common understanding on the importance of equity for the 2015 deal, let us suggest a way ahead: Parties should consider the equity spectrum approach.

Firstly, the core equity principles should be identified, such as the adequacy principle, CBDR+RC, the right to sustainable development and the precautionary principle. In the equity spectrum approach, the “equity index” would then be composed of a basket of more specific equity indicators. This basket would have to contain well-designed indicators that, taken together, measure both responsibility and capacity. It could include indicators for, inter alia, per capita income and standard of living, per capita emissions and historical responsibility, and domestic income inequality.

Once this basket of indicators is agreed, countries' mitigation pledges could be measured against this set. This would create the basis for assessing pledges in terms of their adequacy for staying below 2°C and keeping 1.5°C in reach, and in terms of a fair and equitable sharing of the mitigation burden and atmospheric space. In order to get this review done quickly, Parties should put their targets on the table by the meeting suggested by Ban Ki Moon in September 2014.

Such an approach would not preclude country groupings (like today’s annexes). In fact, it would make such groupings more coherent. For example, the set of countries that is high in capacity and responsibility would change over time – an important fact, given that such countries are candidates for ambitious, legally-binding, economy-wide quantified emissions reduction targets.

Of course many other kinds of commitments are also possible, and desirable. Obvious examples include renewable energy and/or energy efficiency targets and sectoral targets, all of which could have various kinds and degrees of bindingness. Also, it should be noted that some kinds of actions for certain countries can be explicitly contingent on financial and technical support.

Tags:

equity

CBDRRC

Topics:

Equity/effort-sharing

Related Event:

ADP Second Session 2013

rvoorhaar's blog

You Can’t Feed Your Addiction and Break It, Too

Submitted by rvoorhaar on April 30, 2013 - 12:53am

While delegates will be discussing low emission development opportunities in today’s workshop, many of your countries are still feeding their tragic addiction to fossil fuels. You say you want to keep global warming below 2°C and to keep the door open for 1.5°C, but in fact you are consuming fossil fuels as if 4 degrees was the new 2 degrees.

The International Monetary Fund tells us thzat this addiction is costing your taxpayers USD 1.9 trillion each year in subsidies for the fossil fuel industry (FYI, for comparison, 1.9 trillion seconds is about 60,000 years!). As shown recently by the International Energy Agency, the result of this is a continuous rise of global carbon emissions each year, while we know that emissions should in fact peak well before 2015.

The archaic, continued support for fossil fuels means that they remain artificially profitable and that low carbon alternatives such as renewable energy sources and energy efficiency are emerging much slower than they could. Let’s be honest here: you are not aiming for a 2°C world. No, in fact you are undermining the development of these low carbon opportunities, which could create local jobs and steer innovation. Instead you line the pockets of the fossil fuel dealers and encourage them to invest further in a 4+°C future.

Just last year, the energy industry invested 674 billion dollars for more fossil fuels! However, the Carbon Tracker Initiative has shown that national governments and global markets have created a carbon bubble that will make the real estate bubble look like a blip. If Parties are really serious about avoiding dangerous climate change, nearly 70 percent of known reserves of oil, gas and coal must remain in the ground. Further investments in fossil fuels are locking us in to a carbon-intensive development pathway and making climate action more costly, while diverting investments from existing low cost low carbon solutions.

In ECO’s opinion, any new fossil fuel infrastructure puts our planet at risk. ECO therefore suggests that you stop being bipolar and start having a serious conversation here in Bonn about how to phase out fossil fuels subsidies. ECO has pointed out that this phasing out should not increase the vulnerability of people in developing countries and therefore must happen in developed countries first.

The ADP could develop ambitious pathways for phasing out fossil fuel subsidies in developed countries and identify options to shift those subsidies to additional mitigation activities (allowing higher pledges by developed countries). Imagine all that you can do with these savings from phasing out subsidies! You could use this money to support climate actions in developing countries! Or, at the very least, buy ECO some very nice birthday presents (green's our favourite colour).

For developing countries, the ADP could support work to carefully switch fossil fuel subsidies into supporting clean energy access and fostering sustainable development. The ADP could also identify and discuss ways for some developing countries to pursue fossil fuel subsidy phase-out as supported NAMAs.

Being conflicted over such a serious issue can’t be good for your mental health over the long term. Best resolve it now.

Tags:

Mitigation

ambition

fossil fuel subsidies

Topics:

Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Mitigation

Related Event:

ADP Second Session 2013

rvoorhaar's blog

Raise The Bar or Stay Home

Submitted by rvoorhaar on April 30, 2013 - 12:47am

Even as CO2 concentrations are about to break the 400ppm threshold, fresh climate disasters are announced all over the planet, and carbon prices are collapsing because of lax targets on par with BAU, countries have apparently come to the UNFCCC ADP meeting in Bonn with nothing to offer.

Developed countries seem to be looking off in the distance beyond 2020, with images of universal participation and bottom-up national pledges dancing in their heads. Mundane issues like what has to change in the next 6 years and 8 months to stay below 2 degrees are apparently the farthest thing from their minds.

Parties are in Bonn to get down to work on two tasks – raise pre-2020 ambition and craft the next legally binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gas pollution – potentially the most significant global treaty that will ever be negotiated. Delegates should be mindful of the fact that that your work this week and over the next few years will secure you a place in the history books.

Whether the legacy you leave behind is positive or abysmal depends on your creativity, commitment, negotiating skills and sheer hard craft. In short, you will have to be prepared to pull out all the stops. Our planet deserves no less.

Although negotiating a fresh climate deal for a new decade and beyond, Parties also need to address the less sexy issue of the yawning gap between the pledges that are currently on the table and the effort required to limit global temperature rise to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Neither objective should be ignored to the detriment of the other.

Take heart from the fact that the more we achieve in terms of closing the gap over the next 6 or so years, the lighter that workload will be. And it would augur badly indeed if Parties entered into a new climate agreement with a huge ambition deficit.

One place parties can start making progress this year is on international transport. After failing to get any text in discussions under the Bali Action Plan, this year Parties can make a fresh start, by reaching agreement under the International Maritime Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization on a fast track to implementation of market-based measures for international maritime transport and aviation that can put a price on emissions from these sectors.

The ADP must take up this issue and ensure that these sectors make their fair contribution to global efforts to control emissions and generate finance for climate action in developing countries.

Action is needed on many fronts. As yesterday's opening statement by AOSIS laid out, “this is about political will.” Developed countries must have the will to take real action on curbing the continual increase in global temperatures or, let's face it, a new global deal won’t meet our agreed goal of staying below 2°C. So, developed country Parties, best shape up or head home.

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

ADP Second Session 2013

rvoorhaar's blog

On Equity: Part 2

Submitted by rvoorhaar on April 30, 2013 - 12:34am

The following are excerpts from a particularly incisive intervention in the ADP workshop yesterday afternoon. In case you missed it, ECO suggests you take a look. And if you didn't miss it, ECO suggests you take a look anyway, since it's a subject Parties need to work much more on:

“What is needed is a process that would allow for a proper equity review of the pledges, to be conducted in parallel with the equally-critical science review. To that end, the Parties should launch an open, expert process to develop an equity reference framework that is suitable to the evaluation of national pledges. This framework would have to be designed to maximize both ambition and participation. Parties, when making pledges, would be guided by the knowledge that these would be evaluated within both the science and equity reviews.

How to think about such an equity review? The first point is that the demands of equity have already been agreed. This is true at the level of the Convention’s keystone text on CBDR & RC, and it’s true of the four fundamental equity principles – ambition, responsibility, capacity, and development need – that underlie the principle of CBDR & RC and, of course, our shared vision of 'equitable access to sustainable development' as well.

None of this is going to change. Nor should it. Climate, after all, is a global commons problem. The cooperation needed to solve it can only exist if the regime – as it actually unfolds in actions on the ground – is widely seen as being not only 'fair enough,' but an actual positive driver of developmental justice around the world.

What is needed is dynamic equity spectrum approach. This is our key point. And here I must note that a dynamic equity spectrum approach would be entirely consistent with the principles of the Convention, and in particular with the principle of CBDR & RC.

One final point. We do not have to agree to 'a formula' to have a way forward. Reasonable men and women can disagree about the indicators appropriate to, say, capacity. And if we approach the problem in good faith, we may yet find that all plausible, dynamic approaches to CBDR & RC yield approximately the same, or at least strongly overlapping results. Which might just be good enough, at least in the short term.

To sum up, we need a solid science review, we all know it. But we need an equity review as well, and on this front it will take some time to work out the details. But we already know the key thing – will not succeed without a deal that’s at least, as the Australians say, 'fair enough.' And the equity spectrum approach may just be the best way to get one.”

Tags:

equity

CBDRRC

ADP2

Topics:

Equity/effort-sharing

Related Event:

ADP Second Session 2013

rvoorhaar's blog

Blog Posts

Pages