Tag: Yes

Science Says: Civil Society in the Negotiating Room Adds Value

Submitted by MBrockley on June 11, 2013 - 1:26am

It is encouraging to note that Parties were satisfied with the progress they achieved during the previous ADP session. ECO also notes that observers were allowed in the rooms and invited to provide input in several sessions and roundtables. Contrary to popular belief that observers prevent Parties from having an open dialogue, this clearly shows an absence of a correlation between the presence of observers and ability of Parties to talk to each other in a constructive manner. Far be it for us to suggest that there could also be an extremely long of list of “closed” contact groups and sessions in which Parties have failed to produce any meaningful results.

This finding is actually confirmed by a recently published scientific study suggesting that “governments interested in increasing public support for ambitious climate policies could benefit from more CSO involvement” (Bernauer, T. & Gampfer, R. (2013)). Now that we have successfully debunked this theory that our presence could possibly distract some honourable delegates, ECO would suggest that Party delegates welcome our presence and our expertise in all sessions – including roundtables, expert meetings, and informal consultations – with open arms (or at least not closed doors). When such a presence is not foreseen, the only thing standing between such a regrettable situation and an open and transparent process could be the courage of one delegate to bring this point to the attention of the facilitator of this gathering.

We would like to emphasise that NGOs are colourblind – we have never checked the colour of badges at the entrance of the NGO party. Delegates might want to think about this before deciding to institute such a check at the entrance of any negotiation room.

Topics:

NGO Participation

MBrockley's blog

CAN's Equity Reference Framework Discussion Paper

Submitted by MBrockley on June 11, 2013 - 12:00am

can_erf_discussion_paper_-_05062013.pdf

Equity is back on the negotiating table, and this really is no surprise. The negotiations were never going to succeed unless they faced the challenge of “equitable access to sustainable development.” Unless they faced, more precisely, the equity challenge: holding to a 2°C or even 1.5°C-compliant global emission budget while also supporting a common right to adaptation and sustainable development. These are preconditions of any successful climate transition. The difference today is that we all know it.

Today, as the negotiations begin again in earnest, the core challenge is to move the equity agenda forward, in a manner that allows us to simultaneously 1) increase short-term ambition and 2) pioneer a track to collective post- 2020 emissions reductions that are in line with the precautionary principle. This won’t be easy, but it may be possible. Three conditions will need to be met.

· First, the Parties must work together, in good faith, to find a way forward on equity. It will not do for each to assert the uniqueness of its own “national circumstances.” There must be a global way forward.

· Second, pre-2020 ambition must be increased. Developed country targets must be strengthened to be in line with the demands of the science, and significant amounts of financial and technological support must arrive before Paris.

· Third, there must be a path forward for “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities,” and it must lead to a dynamic, “equity spectrum” approach to CBDRC that is responsive to global economic evolution.

<more>

Tags:

discussion paper

Equity Reference Framework

Topics:

Equity/effort-sharing

Organization:

Climate Action Network

CAN Positions

UNFCCC

June 2013 Climate talks: mid session briefing on adaptation

Submitted by MBrockley on June 10, 2013 - 11:57am

June 2013 Climate talks: mid session briefing on adaptation

Credit: Adopt a Negotiator

Sven Harmeling, Germanwatch gives an overview of what has happened so far in the Bonn UN climate negotiations after one week on the topic of adaptation.

Tags:

Adopt a Negotiator

Topics:

Adaptation

Organization:

Climate Action Network

Related Member Organization:

Germanwatch

June 2013 Climate talks: mid session briefing on climate finance

Submitted by MBrockley on June 10, 2013 - 11:55am

June 2013 Climate talks: mid session briefing on climate finance

Credit: Adopt a Negotiator

Meera Ghani, CAN Europe, gives an overview of what has happened so far in the Bonn UN climate negotiations after one week on the topic of finance.

Tags:

Adopt a Negotiator

Topics:

Finance

Organization:

Climate Action Network

Related Member Organization:

CAN Europe (CAN-E)

June 2013 Climate talks: mid session briefing on mitigation

Submitted by MBrockley on June 10, 2013 - 11:54am

June 2013 Climate talks: mid session briefing on mitigation

Credit: Adopt a Negotiator

Jan Kowalzig, gives an overview of what has happened so far in the Bonn UN climate negotiations after one week on the topic of mitigation.

Tags:

Adopt a Negotiator

Topics:

Mitigation

Organization:

Climate Action Network

Related Member Organization:

Oxfam International

June 2013 Climate talks: mid session briefing on equity

Submitted by MBrockley on June 10, 2013 - 11:49am

June 2013 Climate talks: mid session briefing on the big picture

Credit: Adopt a Negotiator

Julie-Anne Richards, CAN-International, gives an overview of what has happened so far in the Bonn UN climate negotiations after one week on the topic of equity.

Topics:

Equity/effort-sharing

Organization:

Climate Action Network

June 2013 Climate talks: mid session briefing on the big picture

Submitted by MBrockley on June 10, 2013 - 11:44am

June 2013 Climate talks: mid session briefing on equity.

Credit: Adopt a Negotiator

Mark Lutes, WWF, gives an overview of what has happened so far in the Bonn UN climate negotiations after one week.

Tags:

Adopt a Negotiator

Organization:

Climate Action Network

Related Member Organization:

WWF International

To Russia, and really not feeling the love at this point:

Submitted by MBrockley on June 10, 2013 - 1:36am

We understand that you want to have your agenda item to hold over our heads like the Sword of Damocles for the coming years. And indeed, it’s true that the Saudis have their Response Measures item to wreak havoc with whenever they want, and others have made silly demands, and sometimes gotten away with them. Clearly some democratic solution must be found. So here’s ECO’s proposal: Every Party is entitled to their own agenda item in the body of their choice, in which they can introduce any matter at any time, and all work in all other bodies must stop until that matter is resolved to the satisfaction of that Party. In this situation, which shall henceforth be known as “Multiple Agenda Deterrent”, or MAD¹, we hope the threat of all other parties pushing the button in retaliation will be sufficient deterrence that no party will dare to go first.

You are welcome.

¹Not to be confused with “Mutually Assured Destruction”, an entirely different scenario

Tags:

MBrockley's blog

Market Mania

Submitted by MBrockley on June 10, 2013 - 1:35am

Carbon markets are in the dumps and policy makers and market participants alike are scrambling to come to their rescue. This weekend, ECO spent two days with delegates to discuss the future of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and what changes to its underlying modalities and procedures are needed to make the CDM fit for the future. The number of delegates that showed up on Sunday at 9 AM showed us that there is hope.

Let’s start with the good news. For the first time, human rights impacts of CDM projects and harmful impacts of large power supply projects in the CDM were discussed openly! Now dear delegates, it’s time to move into action mode: start by kicking coal out of the CDM, find a way to phase out large scale power projects, improve the stakeholder consultation process, establish a grievance mechanism and move the whole CDM far beyond offsetting!

But ECO is worried that certain Parties that host many CDM projects did not seem to like the proposed changes. Some of them posited that everything was all right with the mechanism and that people who raised doubts about additionality were only showing their ignorance. ECO suggests that a little less self-congratulation would be in order given the number of academic studies that have concluded that there are in fact substantial problems. If you want a future for the CDM you need to improve its reputation by addressing the problems, not ignoring them. This old-fashioned thinking will certainly not help the CDM to recover and scale up but will once and for all give it the lethal injection.

Joint Implementation has been in the shadow of the CDM for many years. Yet close to 800 million JI credits have been issued to date. Strong reforms are needed for JI. Almost all of them under track 1 have very limited transparency or integrity. Despite the poor quality of JI offsets, they are used extensively. Strong reforms are needed for JI. The experience with JI track 1 shows that a new, unified track needs to have strong international oversight. Also, issuance of JI credits for emissions reductions after 2012 should only be possible once the host country has issued its AAUs for the second commitment period. The future 2015 regime will require market mechanisms to work in a different world where many developed and developing countries will have mitigation commitments.

This issue is currently being discussed in SBSTA, where Parties are establishing a new market mechanism and a Framework for Various Approaches that should make emission reductions units that are achieved by various mitigation systems internationally tradable and eligible for meeting national emission reduction targets.

Some countries have put forward good proposals to avoid double counting. But ECO is missing support for centralised governance and international consistency of standards and how to achieve net mitigation benefits. And let’s not forget, before we can agree on anything, we need an international accounting framework and clearer and more ambitious pledges.

Tags:

SBSTA

Clean Development Mechanism

Topics:

Flexible Mechanisms

MBrockley's blog

[Human Rights] in the CDM

Submitted by MBrockley on June 10, 2013 - 1:33am

After this weekend’s CDM reform workshop, ECO has new hope for the CDM’s ability to address human rights. For the first time in the history of the CDM, Parties had an open dialogue about the impacts of CDM on human rights. It is important to recall that Parties agreed to “fully respect human rights in all climate change related actions.” The review of the CDM Modalities and Procedures provides a critical opportunity for the CDM to make this a reality.

A case in point…The Barro Blanco project is a hydroelectric dam that is currently under construction on the Tabasará River in western Panama. Once completed, the dam is projected to flood homes, schools, and religious, historical and cultural sites in Ngäbe indigenous territories, threatening the Ngäbe’s cultural heritage. In addition, the dam will transform the Tabasará River – critical to the Ngäbe’s physical, cultural, and economic survival – from a flowing river to a stagnant lake ecosystem. This will severely affect the Ngäbe’s lands and means of subsistence, and result in the forced relocation of many families.

CDM rules require investors to consult with local stakeholders and to take their comments into account during the registration process. However, the company did not consult the Ngäbe communities regarding the Barro Blanco project and its impacts. In February 2011, the Ngäbe, in collaboration with civil society groups, submitted comments to the CDM Executive Board. The comments documented the Ngäbe’s concerns, in particular the fact that the Ngäbe were not given notice of the consultation process and were never consulted. Despite concrete evidence that the Barro Blanco project violated CDM rules on stakeholder consultation, in 2011, the CDM Executive Board registered the Barro Blanco as a CDM project.

Now that Barro Blanco has been registered, there is no process that allows the Ngäbe to raise their concerns regarding the project’s social and environmental impacts. Over the past two years, the SBI has been negotiating an appeals procedure that would allow stakeholders to challenge registration decisions under the CDM. However, ECO is dismayed that, as discussions currently stand, this procedure would not provide a means of recourse for affected communities once a project is under construction or operational.

More than 6,500 projects are registered under the CDM, and these projects will be operational for many years to come. ECO calls on Parties to revise the CDM Modalities and Procedures to: establish international safeguards to protect human rights; strengthen requirements on how to conduct local stakeholder consultations; establish a grievance process that allows affected peoples and communities to raise concerns about harms associated with CDM projects; and develop a process to deregister projects where there are violations of CDM rules.

To learn more, join us at a side event on CDM and human rights TODAY at 6:30 pm in Room Solar. You will meet on Monday at 6:30 pm, wWeni Bakama, a Ngäbe activist, and other panelists who will discuss how we can integrate human rights protections in the CDM.

Tags:

Topics:

Region:

MBrockley's blog

Tag: Yes

Pages