Tag: AWG-ADP

New Zealand has landed in a pickle over its forest accounts.  The age structure of NZ’s plantations means that major harvesting is due to start late this decade and continue into the 2020s. Combine this with the new afforestation/reforestation debit-credit rule and the gains NZ wrangled in LULUCF look likely to evaporate – its carbon accounts skewed into the negative. ECO might even have a rare twinge of sympathy for NZ.

But ECO has no sympathy for New Zealand when it comes to gross emissions.  They’ve continued rising since 1990 and are projected to continue rising, even with its much-talked-about-but-rather-weak Emissions Trading Scheme.

Worse, having agreed in Cancun that developed countries should write a low carbon development plan, New Zealand is showing no sign of writing one.  It certainly has no plan to get gross emissions on a downward trajectory.

Instead New Zealand is planning just everything possible to increase emissions: dairy farming expansion, unprecedented levels of coal mining, a major road building programme, more oil and gas exploration, and, to cap it all (no pun intended) off, the state owned mining company wants to dig up 1.5 billion tonnes of lignite and turn it into fuel and fertiliser.

It’s no wonder New Zealand wants rules for setting QELROs that would enable it to meet its 20% by 2020 target and end the second commitment period with over 22 million spare AAUs – a tidy sum for a small country.

So, where does all this leave New Zealand’s decisions on CP2 of Kyoto, its 2020 target and its QELRO? NZ is quietly desperate to accommodate its planned increase in gross emissions and expected blow-out in net emissions.  With no intention of actually reducing gross emissions, NZ’s only course of action is to play with the accounting system. This means trying to ensure maximum carry-over of surplus AAUs from CP1 to CP2, securing access to the cheapest carbon credits possible (euphemistically “full recourse to carbon markets”) and a handout of AAUs from new accounting rules.

It looks like New Zealand’s decision on CP2 will depend on who New Zealand wants to be friends with and whether the accounting system is sufficiently favourable. Failing to meet a voluntary commitment under the Copenhagen Accord has political consequences, but failing to meet a binding commitment under CP2 has political and economic consequences. So no surprises then that New Zealand has not submitted its QELRO, is focused on the accounting and has also created an impossible hurdle (see the demand for a "balancing agreement" in its recent submission) in case an excuse is needed to bail from the Kyoto ship.

After a tumultuous week, ECO is concerned that some Parties might be in danger of losing sight of the forest amongst the trees. ECO would like to remind parties that in Durban they set themselves a tall order to undertake a LOT of work this year – now is the time to stop the shenanigans, roll your sleeves up and get on with it.

Mitigation

ECO should not need to remind Parties how urgent it is to increase mitigation ambition! We need to make great progress this year in the KP and LCA, and in the ADP workplan.

As the KP rumbles on without urgency, Parties have not yet got to discuss how they will reduce the AAU loophole, nor the technical details of the QELROs. CP2 Parties and the ditherers need to up their game, so that their pollution reductions and targets contribute significantly and fairly towards closing the gigatonne gap.

Rapid progress in the LCA is needed on 1(b)(i), which lags far behind the KP in developing the QELROs promised in the Bali Action Plan. Countries that have jumped ship from the Kyoto Protocol need to show that their pledges are capable of being compared through common accounting and MRV systems.

ECO is disappointed with the silence from the 1(b)(ii) counties that have not yet brought forward pledges. We look for all countries to table NAMAs, both those that can do so unilaterally and those that need support.

The workplan to increase ambition must go on until the ambition gap has been closed. Agreement to have an agenda item and progress on the workplan on increasing short term ambition in the ADP is a non-negotiable and essential element of the regime. The ADP has a dual role on mitigation: to negotiate a fair, ambitious and binding deal by 2015 and to increase ambition in the short term by all Parties. This is a crucial space where some of the elements of the gigatonne gap-closing agenda can be addressed.

Finance

ECO fancies the work pro-gramme on long term finance as a constructive way to mobilize US$100 billion a year, but is kept awake at night worrying that, if not clearly connected to the LCA negotiations, it could come to nought. ECO does not want the co-chairs’ report to the COP18 to sit on yet another dusty shelf. ECO needs this report to actually spur decisions on new and additional sources of public finance to address urgent adaptation and mitigation needs. ECO is still not sure why some parties would choose to block the creation of this important spin-off group on finance under the LCA. ECO is painfully crossing both fingers and toes that all parties finally agree on the need for negotiating space to start drafting text before Doha for a decision on finance to be adopted there.

Adaptation

ECO is pleased that Parties have made progress on the NAPs, with a draft conclusion text outlining funding modalities. But more progress is needed this week – Parties need to show how support will be scaled up, including through direct access. NAPs preparation needs to commence as soon as possible so that they can provide input into post-2020 considerations, whilst simultaneously enhancing the implementation of existing NAPAs.

Given that the major work on loss and damage in 2012 will happen through the work programme expert meetings, Parties should agree on holding an informal meeting before the COP to assess the achievements of these expert meetings, and draft decision text there. A failure to sufficiently increase mitigation pledges will lead to an increase in loss and damage, which must be recognised.  And ways to explore the institutional options from Durban and Cancun must be outlined in the run-up to 2015.

Shared Vision

Listening to last week’s spin-off group on shared vision had a distinctly “Groundhog Day” feel, as Parties expressed their long known views. The first workshop on equity had some interesting and relevant discussion, which leads ECO to suggest that Parties focus their efforts on agreeing to the peak year in Doha. In order to stay below 2°C and keep 1.5°C within reach, the Qatari Presidency must highlight the need for Parties to agree to an early peak year. Consider the gauntlet thrown – this will be a key measure of success at Doha.

Review

It is no secret that ECO favours a narrow scope of the first periodic Review, sticking to the Cancun agreed definition, which would support the effectiveness of the Review. ECO is hopeful that Parties can reach agreement in Doha through solution-oriented discussions in the spin-off group.

Capacity Building

Lately, capacity building has been treated like Parties' forgotten child. ECO is therefore looking forward to two whole afternoons this week of the Durban Forum on Capacity Building. ECO hopes the Forum will concentrate on reviewing action on capacity building in the context of the many current and future capacity needs of developing countries, rather than those that applied in 2001.

Technology Transfer

Parties don’t seem to be much closer to choosing a CTCN host from among the three ranked  possibilities. Nor have they moved much in addressing the constitution of the advisory board. Additionally, the LCA contact group raised the issue of IPR as motivation for a spin-off group. As a result, some who are wary of IPR discussions pointed to the TEC as the appropriate venue. It's solidly within the TEC's mandate. Let's get on with it!