Tag: AWG-ADP

From Bonn to Berlin: Ministers At the Petersberg Dialogue Take Over

Submitted by rvoorhaar on May 3, 2013 - 12:29am

When the climate policy train leaves the ADP2 station in Bonn today, it moves on to Berlin at the Petersberg Dialogue. Germany and the next COP host, Poland, will serve as the conductors for this next stop. Three dozen ministers from around the world have been invited to this informal exchange of views to complement the UNFCCC process. ECO is happy to hear that ministers are finally getting together to work on the next steps after Doha. We encourage ministers to put more details to key challenges identified in the past week here in Bonn.

ECO identifies the following tasks for ministers to work on during the Petersberg Dialogue:

1. Make further progress on developing a shared understanding of how to assess individual countries’ contributions to an equitable sharing of the global mitigation effort. This should include discussions on the provision of climate finance to developing countries. A 2015 deal cannot be agreed unless the concerns around equity are resolved.

2. If you are truly serious about the 2°C commitment, you’ll need to re-double your efforts to increase ambition before 2020. Ministers at the Petersberg Dialogue should explicitly recognize that developed countries must increase their woefully inadequate mitigation pledges during 2014. Opportunities such as the KP review cannot be missed.

3. Ministers should engage in discussions on how developed and developing countries can create an upward spiral of increasing climate finance and increasing ambition in developing countries.

4. Ministers should engage in discussions on complementary measures. Warsaw could make significant progress in closing the gigatonne gap by seeing various types of complementary measures launched – such as phasing out HFCs under the Montreal Protocol or a dedicated agenda item within Workstream 2 to develop options to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.

5. Ministers should identify milestones to achieve major progress on climate finance at Warsaw. Demonstrable progress on climate finance will be an essential pre-condition for the 2015 outcome. Developed country ministers need to ensure that they can present a track record of year-by-year climate finance increases in 2015. This would lend much needed credibility to further plans for scaling up finance towards the 2020 commitment. Ministers also need to ensure that public climate finance is allocated equitably between adaptation and mitigation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ECO has learned that German chancellor Angela Merkel will open the Petersberg Dialogue. Attending Ministers may wish to use this opportunity to ask her about Germany’s psychological state. ECO finds it difficult to understand how Germany can claim the limelight through the proclaimed Energiewende (energy transformation) to renewable energies while at the same time failing to support recent attempts to reform the EU Emission Trading System. Does the German government realise that it is starting to look schizophrenic? Strengthening the ETS is crucial for the Energiewende and more.

Tags:

Topics:

Equity/effort-sharing

Finance

Flexible Mechanisms

Region:

Europe

Related Event:

ADP Second Session 2013

rvoorhaar's blog

The Equity Review

Submitted by rvoorhaar on May 3, 2013 - 12:24am

Today, it is widely understood that without a Science Review there would be no real possibility of achieving the ambition required by science. An Equity Review is imminently needed to muster sufficient political will for that needed ambition.

Such a review must be based upon the equity principles that are embodied in the Convention, most notably the principles of ambition, responsibility, capacity and developmental need.

The challenge now is to develop a set of indicators that properly express these principles, and to build them into an Equity Reference Framework. Such a Framework could help Parties to negotiate a set of pledges that are robust and fair enough to yield the breakthrough that we need in Paris.

This is not about a “formula”. Rather, an Equity Reference Framework would be a tool that the Parties – perhaps with a bit of assistance from their friends in civil society – can use to review and improve each other’s proposals in the later part of the political negotiations.

Procedurally, the key is that, when developing their pledges at the national level, Parties would be fully aware of the fact that these pledges will be evaluated against the science as well as the Convention’s equity principles.

Of course, after this evaluation, Parties will want to scale up their pledges, until they finally have a set that fairly distributes the effort of holding warming to a manageable 1.5°C.

Thus, we are calling for a process that allows a COP decision to launch the Equity Review at Warsaw. This decision should include the following:

Parties and Observers should be called upon to make submissions to the ADP co-chairs with their views on relevant equity principles and indicators. These submissions should be made by May 27, 2013.

The co-chairs should organize a Roundtable on equity principles and the Equity Review during the June Bonn session.

A decision text should be drafted during the autumn session.

A decision to launch the Equity Review should be made at COP19 in Warsaw.

Tags:

equity

Topics:

Equity/effort-sharing

Related Event:

ADP Second Session 2013

rvoorhaar's blog

Climate Finance In No Man’s Land

Submitted by rvoorhaar on May 3, 2013 - 12:20am

The importance of finance to both raising pre-2020 mitigation ambition and getting a successful deal in 2015 cannot be overstated. Right now, climate finance appears to be in no man's land.

This year should mark the start of a new finance period, given that the Fast Start Finance period ended last year. Instead, we are almost halfway through the year and we’ve seen no new finance commitments beyond the small handful of pledges made in Doha.

This is unacceptable, and ECO thinks that no developed country should be coming back to this process empty handed. Developing countries are facing escalating climate impacts and associated costs. The livelihoods, food security and survival of millions of people are at stake because of a climate crisis they did not create. There can be no justification for holding back on promised finance.

Today's briefing on the Long Term Finance Work Programme provides delegates with an opportunity to focus on how the process can secure concrete outcomes by COP19. Linking the Work Programme to the COP Ministerial on finance (which crucially must involve finance ministers) is key.

By COP19, we need all developed countries to set out what public climate finance they will provide over the period of 2013-2015 as part of a roadmap for scaling up public finance towards the promised US$100bn per year by 2020. The Green Climate Fund cannot remain an empty shell for a fourth COP in a row. As they start to fill the fund, Parties also need to agree that public climate finance delivered between now and 2020 will be equitably divided between mitigation and adaptation.

Developed country claims that they do not have public money to commit ring hollow. Trillions of dollars have been made rapidly available to pay for wars and bank bailouts. And there are plenty of feasible innovative public sources of climate finance, including financial transaction taxes, switching of fossil fuel subsidies, the closing of corporate tax loopholes, bunker fuel levies and more. The current fixation on leveraging private finance must be redirected towards implementing these public sources.

ECO wants to stress that scaling-up pre-2020 public finance cannot be postponed until COP21. A new, comprehensive climate agreement is very unlikely to emerge if developing countries do not see existing promises being met. Progress between now and 2015 is critical to ambition, and will determine whether climate finance will make or break a deal at COP21.

Tags:

climate finance

Topics:

Finance

Related Event:

ADP Second Session 2013

rvoorhaar's blog

CAN Intervention on Pre-2020 Ambition at Bonn ADP2 Special Event with ADP Co-Chairs, 2 May 2013

Submitted by Sam Harris on May 2, 2013 - 9:37am

Workstream 2 intervention on pre-2020 ambition, 2 May 2013

Delivered by Natasha Hurley of EIA on behalf of CAN

Thank you Co-Chairs,

My name is Natasha Hurley and I’m from EIA, speaking on behalf of the Climate Action Network.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to input into this very important process, we hope our interventions today help speed the process along in some measure. Ms. Figueres asked us to be as practical and concrete as possible so we’ve put together a list of mitigation actions that need to be taken in the pre-2020 timeframe.

We've heard a lot about countries’ activities and plans for further action over the past 3-and-a-half days. All of these are welcome as they help contain the infamous “gigatonne gap”. But (and here’s the vital question): Has the gap actually shrunk by a single tonne as a result of those activities?

First and foremost developed countries must increase their current weak targets. We are seriously worried that, despite a constant flow of new evidence about the increasing impact of climate change on vulnerable countries and people, not a single developed country has shown any intention of actually increasing its target. The KP review process in 2014 is the opportunity to change that, but only if new political momentum is created and a parallel process for non-KP parties established. For this to happen, you will need to bring Ministers to the table.

Some developing countries can increase their ambition too. We expect pledges from the Gulf countries and other advanced countries currently without pledges, to be announced in Warsaw.

We also suggest that WS2 engages in discussion on how to create an upward spiral of increasing ambition in developing countries and increasing means of implementation. Parties could explore practical ideas on what this could look like - it could be through a dedicated workshop and submissions by Parties, for example. Perhaps the registry could play a role in this process.

Complementary initiatives are an additional option to close the gap:

For instance, WS2 should identify a home for agreeing concrete steps to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. Parties should be asked to submit their planned action on fossil fuel subsidies, and developed countries should announce action to immediately phase out subsidies. For developing countries, a dedicated workshop could explore options to look at the links between phasing out subsidies and advancing development priorities.

We also support the idea that the Warsaw COP invite action to phase-down HFCs under the Montreal Protocol, with its effective and proven mechanism for technology transfer and financial support for developing countries. We suggest WS2 start drafting a COP decision on this now.

And finally, complementary action is also needed on international transport. The ICAO Council meeting in June should be used as an opportunity to make progress on a comprehensive global approach to aviation emissions that includes carbon pricing. We are worried by the double-narrative coming from some countries, who say in this forum that they want to increase pre-2020 ambition, but nonetheless oppose real progress under ICAO.

Thank you very much.

Topics:

Finance

Mitigation

Organization:

AWG-ADP

Climate Action Network

Related Event:

ADP Second Session 2013

CAN Intervention on Overall Ambition at Bonn ADP2 Special Event with ADP Co-Chairs, 2 May 2013

Submitted by Sam Harris on May 2, 2013 - 9:19am

CAN Intervention on Overall Amition at Bonn ADP2 Special Event with ADP Co-Chairs

Delivered by Alden Meyer of Union of Concerned Scientists

Thank you, co-chairs for this opportunity to share our views. I am Alden Meyer and I’m speaking on behalf of the Climate Action Network.

CAN believes the scope, structure, and design of the 2015 agreement should be consistent with a high likelihood of success in keeping the increase in global temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius. It should contain a set of national targets and actions on mitigation, adaptation, and finance that are aimed at achieving this goal within an overall framework of ambition, accountability, and equity.

There has been a lot of discussion here in Bonn this week on the process and timetable for developing such an agreement by COP 21 in 2015. CAN suggests the following four-step process.

1). Countries should agree at COP 19 that national proposals on mitigation action and finance will be evaluated in light of both the collective level of ambition needed to achieve the temperature limitation goal, and on the basis of a set of equity principles that helps assure the overall fairness of country efforts in relation to each other.

The science review starting at the next Bonn session will help guide the first part of this evaluation. In Warsaw, Parties need to launch a parallel process to develop an equity reference framework; my colleague, Mohammed Adow, will say more about this in our next intervention.

2). Countries should submit their proposals in full accordance with the requirements of both ambition and equity, in sufficient time to allow for full review and subsequent submission of revised proposals before COP 21 in Paris. We would suggest COP 20 as the deadline for such initial submissions.

3). A robust review should be conducted on the collective adequacy of these proposals in satisfying the agreed global temperature limitation objectives, as well as their individual adequacy in terms of both ambition and equity.

4). Countries should then revise their proposals in accordance with the results of this review, and re-submit them in advance of COP 21.

One last point: the main barrier to adequately addressing the climate crisis isn’t lack of knowledge about the problem, nor the lack of cost-effective solutions. It’s the lack of political will to confront the special interests that have worked long and hard to block the path to a sustainable low-carbon future. In this regard, the sustained engagement of national leaders in providing strong political guidance is critical to achieving a successful outcome in Paris. And as we all learned in Copenhagen, this engagement cannot wait until the final moments of these negotiations.

Thank you again for this opportunity to share our views.

Tags:

ambition

Organization:

AWG-ADP

Climate Action Network

Related Event:

ADP Second Session 2013

CAN Intervention on Equity at Bonn ADP2 Special Event with ADP Co-Chairs, 2 May 2013

Submitted by Sam Harris on May 2, 2013 - 9:13am

CAN Intervention at Special ADP2 Roundtable on 2 May 2013

Thank you, Co-Chairs, for this opportunity!

My name is Mohamed Adow, and I'm speaking for the Climate Action Network.

CAN is calling for an EQUITY REVIEW in parallel with the scientific and political review, by which I mean the first periodical review (2013-15).

This brief intervention will not allow me to explain in detail what I mean with the EQUITY REVIEW, but it will allow me to share this one key point – When pledging their targets, Parties will be aware that their pledges will be reviewed against equity criteria as well.

A first step towards this review would be Parties agreeing to the underlying principles – the equity principles embodied in the Convention. The four core principles, clearly, are adequacy, responsibility, capacity and development need – the principles that must necessarily underlie any DYNAMIC operationalization of CBDR & RC.

In a next step, the Secretariat would invite submissions from equity experts associated with both Parties and Observer organizations. Submissions would focus on the Convention principles, and on indicators that express those principles. It would compile and synthesize these submissions, and solicit expert assessment of their relative implications and of the best manner by which the Parties can use them.

Mr Co-chair, let me stress this point, what is needed is an Equity Reference framework which the Parties can use to review each other’s proposals in the later part of the political negotiations.

The key point is that, when developing their pledges at the national level, Parties would be fully aware of the fact that these pledges will be evaluated against, not only the science, but the Convention’s equity principles as well.

And after the evaluation of the pledges, Parties will want to scale up their pledges according to the suggestions of the scientific and equity reviews

We are calling for a process that allows a COP decision on the EQUITY REVIEW at Warsaw:

Parties and Observers should be called upon to make submissions to the ADP chairs on relevant equity principles and views on the proposed Equity Review. These submissions should be made by May 27, 2013.
The Secretariat should organize a Roundtable on equity principles and the Equity Review in June 2013.
Decisions text should be drafted during the autumn session.
A decision on the Equity Review should be made at COP19 in Warsaw.

Tags:

intervention

ADP2

Topics:

Equity/effort-sharing

Organization:

AWG-ADP

Climate Action Network

Related Event:

ADP Second Session 2013

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

Tag: AWG-ADP

Pages