Tag: AWG-KP

Copenhagen brings back many memories. Long, freezing queues outside the Bella Centre, a COP president oblivious to basic UN procedures, and most importantly, no FAB (fair, ambitious, binding) deal.

Who would think that Denmark, less than a year later, would be the place making
ambitious progress in the fight against climate change!

Only a fool would hesitate to invest today in a rapid and complete transition to a fossil fuel free economy. This was pretty much the message from the Danish Climate Commission to the government when asked about the possibilities of phasing out fossil fuels in Denmark by 2050.

The commission’s report concluded that the long term additional costs of becoming fossil fuel independent would be ‘in the order of 0.5% of Denmark’s GDP in 2050’.  However, they went on, the conversion must start now in order to ensure cost efficiency.

The commission adopted 40 concrete recommendations, including expansion of offshore wind capacity by 200 MW annually on average in 2015-2025.  Neither CCS nor nuclear power is included in the vision, primarily because both were deemed to be cost-prohibitive.

So far, the Prime Minister’s response is that Denmark should increase the use of wind power, biomass and electric vehicles, although a concrete follow-up plan -- a Zero Carbon Action Plan (ZCAP) -- has yet to be presented.  But further, the Prime Minister now also supports the demand to raise the level of ambition in the EU, moving from a 20% to a 30% reduction target on 1990 levels by 2020.

The Danish opposition and NGOs are now pushing for the government to produce an ambitious and concrete ZCAP as a response to the recommendations from the commission. Whether that will be delivered is yet to be seen, but chances are that the Danish government is waking up and discovering that the race to the green future has already begun.

The REDD+ Partnership has spent hours and days agonising on whether and how to involve stakeholders in the decision on how they should participate in the Partnership’s deliberations. This has proved far more controversial than one would expect in a voluntary partnership.

Originally an item to be discussed and resolved last Saturday and Sunday in meetings prior to the current UNFCCC session, under the inept chairing of Papua New Guinea and Japan this issue was held over to Monday and yet again to Tuesday.

Then, despite the fact that almost every partner in the room wanted to resolve the stakeholder participation question first, the co-chairs fell back on the excuse that the Partnership must operate by consensus, side-stepped the issue and pressed forward to other matters.

ECO has been observing this unfolding drama with fascination and growing alarm, and has a simple point to make.  Consensus is not the same as unanimity.  It doesn’t mean that everyone has to agree fully with everything; it means reaching a decision that everyone can live with. Under that definition there was a working consensus in the room, as indicated in statements by well more than a dozen partners, all voicing similar opinions on moving the agenda.

Many in civil society use the principle of consensus all the time and know how to do this stuff, just as with participation and consultation and representation and empowerment and capacity building and a whole host of other things that REDD needs. To which is added substantive expertise from decades of experience working on forest and land use issues. 

Civil society can be, and wants to be, an asset in the REDD+ Partnership process. Why are the co-chairs treating that as a problem not an opportunity?

The final report of the Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing (AGF) that was established by the UN Secretary General early in 2010 may be the most anticipated document in the climate negotiations these days. 

In November, the AGF panel is expected to deliver recommendation on the crucial question of how to generate, at a minimum, $100 billion per year by 2020, providing a crucial part of the groundwork needed for a new and dramatically scaled-up strategy for climate finance as a whole.

One thing is already clear for sure: no single source will serve as silver bullet to achieve that target. A combination of different instruments will have to be found.

As a result, attention is focusing on some of the major pieces.  And there is no question one of those top-tier sources should be revenues generated with regard to emissions from ‘bunker fuels’ (international aviation and maritime fuels). 

An international levy or auction revenues assessed on aviation and shipping would deliver predictable, consistent and additional public funding to support climate actions by non-Annex 1 countries.  If properly structured, this could eventually contribute as much as $40 billion per year.  Without that, it will be nearly impossible to collect the public funds that are needed in aggregate for climate finance.

In assessing various alternative methods, it is clear that in order to avoid carbon leakage it is imperative to take a global sectoral approach.  On the revenue side it is economically reasonable to include all countries.  But for fairness reasons it is crucial to ensure that the respective contributions of developing countries are fully refunded, and there are quite a few detailed proposals for doing so.

By increasing the resources for the new fund through stable contributions from the transport sector, developing countries would benefit from the increased support available for adaptation, REDD and other measures.

So delegates, as you land on your flights back home, remember to transmit this message to your capitals: now is the time to support the development of productive
instruments to generate climate finance from international transport.  It is essential for putting the necessary scale of financial support on the table.