Tag: Kyoto

From Tokyo to Bonn: A Target Heard 'Round the World

In Bonn, while most nations are clarifying their pledges, as agreed, Japan is not saying a word about its 25% target. We know that Japan has been revising its 2030 energy strategy. While we welcome the intensive discussion on that, we hope that Japan also contributes to the discussion we are having here – reduction targets for post-2012 and, importantly, raising ambition!

In Bonn, while most nations are clarifying their pledges, as agreed, Japan is not saying a word about its 25% target. We know that Japan has been revising its 2030 energy strategy. While we welcome the intensive discussion on that, we hope that Japan also contributes to the discussion we are having here – reduction targets for post-2012 and, importantly, raising ambition! At the minimum, Japan needs to reaffirm its 25% from 1990 levels by 2020 target and show the world it will keep to the path of a low carbon future, even while recovering from the catastrophe that struck last year. In fact, some Japanese NGOs have shown that the 25% target is achievable even while phasing out all nuclear. Japan can make a sizeable contribution to the world by transitioning toward a safe, low carbon economy. Japan should use its discussion at home to raise its voice at Bonn and reach a more ambitious target by Bangkok!

Topics: 
Related Newsletter : 

Mmmmm mmmmm MRV!

Developing countries have long insisted on the need for transparent and coordinated provision of financial support, to enable independent review of the extent to which commitments are fulfilled, as well as maximise the effectiveness of the funding. Moreover, transparency is vital to ensuring that the funds are equitably distributed over all developing countries in need of support, with priority for the most vulnerable developing countries.

At present, though there have been some positive steps taken in this direction, unless ECO was not invited that magical day, there is no common framework for measuring, reporting and verification (MRV) of international climate finance that fully captures existing financial flows.

ECO was happy to hear that at the end of 2011 the European Commission proposed a new EU regulation (referred to as the “MMR” Regulation) on monitoring and reporting for EU climate finance. The MMR (yet another acronym that delegates and observers should learn by heart) will standardize climate finance reporting requirements for EU Member States. We are glad to hear that the proposal is going through the EU legislative process this year, just in time to monitor the EU’s post-2012 financial commitments for climate action.

But the MMR still needs guidance from EU Member States on key concepts and methodologies to be included in the legislation: what is meant by climate finance and in particular “private climate finance”? What is “new and additional” climate finance and how are the baselines set for measuring this? How should the MMR count the climate-relevant activities and outcomes when reporting on projects with broader objectives?

In the grand tradition of EU stakeholder consultation processes, ECO knows that its ideas will be read and considered, and so takes the opportunity to recommend that the MMR include the following:

- detailed information on where the money is going

- comparable information that can be aggregated

- sources and recipient institutions as well as the channels used need to be visible in order to keep track of the financial flow

- Also, for this process to be really transparent, it is crucial that this information be made accessible to third parties, including recipient countries and NGOs and that the reported information be quadruple-checked by independent finance experts

But all this being said, ECO would like to remind all parties that any MMR or MRV proposal does not make any sense as long as there is no finance to MMR or MRV (or whatever you want to call it). At the end of the day, we need developed countries to start pledging substantial, scaled-up climate funding for 2013 onwards. Or the MMR will be yet another empty shell.

And because ECO knows that parties want to hear more about the major MRV reform behind the obscure acronym, the ACT Alliance and CAN-Europe went to great lengths to organize a side event on the role of private finance in climate action next Monday.

ECO will definitely be there.

Topics: 
Related Newsletter : 

“CAN Collectibles”: South Africa

We Put the “fun” in “Mitigashun”!

Fast Facts About Countries That Can Increase Their Ambition in Qatar!

Bonus Double Saturday Edition!

National term of greeting:

Howzit? / Heyta!

Annual alcohol consumption:

>200 litres per person per year (beer equivalent)

Annual cheese consumption:

We prefer meat.

Best things about South Africa:

Sun, surf, sand (take that, Australia!). Lots of unspoilt open spaces.

Worst things about South Africa:

Our soccer team. Lots of unspoilt open spaces targeted for fracking.

Things you didn't know:

South Africa has 3 capitals separated by as much as 1600 km.

Existing action on the table:

Peak national emissions between 2020 and 2025, plateau for up to a decade and then decline. Bring emissions below business-as-usual trajectory by 34% by 2020 and 42% by 2025, conditional on receipt of adequate support. 9% of SA’s electricity supply from new renewables (excluding hydro) by 2030.

Additional actions South Africa should agree to as its 2020 contribution, at a minimum:

Peak emissions by 2020 and as far as possible below 550 Mt/annum. Achieve 15% of electricity from new renewable energy technologies by 2020. Adopt a process, with timeline, to establish a national carbon budget, or at least sectoral budgets covering at least 80% of national emissions, by mid-October 2013. Deploy over 25 million m2 of solar water heating collection. Enforce comprehensive energy efficiency labelling regulations.

Topics: 
Region: 
Related Newsletter : 

“CAN Collectibles”: France


Double Your Pleasure, Halve Your Pollution!

Fast Facts About Countries That Can Increase Their Ambition in Qatar!

Bonus Double Saturday Edition!

 



National term of endearment/greeting: Garçon! (only for use in oldstyle cafés, in Paris, by innocent foreigners)
Annual wine consumption: 54 litres/person/year (decreasing due to Frech winery climate change impacts)
Annual cheese consumption: 24 kgs/person/year (increasing to make up for decreased wine drinking)
Best things about France: The wine and the cheese (see above). Beaches in Brittany up north now that one can enjoy warm and sunny summers there (see: global warming).
Worst things about France: Dangerous addiction to nuclear energy. Unemployment due to lack of green jobs (see: dangerous addiction to nuclear energy).
Things you didn't know: Frog legs taste just like chicken.
Existing unconditional pledge on the table: The EU's 20% below 1990 levels by 2020.
Existing conditional pledge (upper end): The EU's 30% below 1990 levels by 2020.
Next step to increase ambition by COP18: This year: a KP QELRO consistent with cuts of at least 30% below 1990 levels by 2020. And a commitment to work in the ADP process to raise ambition to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.
Rationale: The EU, including France, is  close to reaching its 2020 target, a mere 8 years, too early. Moving to an interim 30% target this year would be honest, boost our economy, provide jobs and reduce health budgets. What else can a new President want?
Topics: 
Region: 
Related Newsletter : 

Adapting, But Still Funding

The Adaptation Fund (AF) has entered into its fifth year of operation. A couple of weeks before this Bonn session, the Board of the Fund (AFB) at its 17th meeting made substantial decisions for further advancing the Fund´s provisions. In particular, these covered critical aspects such as the guidance for the consultative process, the consideration of most vulnerable communities, the establishment of complaints procedures and increased transparency regarding the technical review of project proposals. In the course of this week, the AFB had a chance to share information on its progress with interested Parties. The AFB can be congratulated for increasing its attention towards these issues and for learning from its own lessons.

This is important for the AF at its critical juncture of raising funds for meeting the adaptation needs of vulnerable countries and financing innovative projects that benefit the targeted areas. The prices for Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), which is the innovative and main funding source of the AF, have drastically decreased over the last months. Part of this is due to the lack of global ambition in mitigation. The EU, with its Emissions Trading Scheme, is one of the key demanders of the CERs. However, the current EU target of  20% reduction is not only well below the ambition indicated by the IPCC with regard to the 2°C limit, but also affects the prospect of the ETS as a functioning setter of price signals for emissions. (Of course, other developed countries lag behind in their mitigation ambition as well).

The direct access  approach of the AF is speeding up, with more and more developing countries managing the associated accreditation process, while sadly the funding gap is increasing, making it almost impossible for the AF to respond to all funding requests.

Few resources have been dedicated to the AF, despite its innovativeness and its progress. Sweden has contributed this year for a second time; Spain is the top contributor, with 45 million Euro. There are still too many developed countries who have not paid into it, some of them sitting on the Board. (And one could also imagine that some developing countries would support the AF in their own interest, e.g. as a learning tool.)

To address this issue, the Adaptation Fund Board has now set the target to raise US$100 million additional funds by the end of 2013. ECO encourages all developed countries to put additional money into the Fund. These contributions should enable the AF to keep pace with need until the Green Climate Fund becomes fully operational, due to increasing funding demands from developing countries.

Related Newsletter : 

On The Outside Looking In

 

Dear delegates,

Let us share with you our confusion.  We are very happy to hear your heart-warming reports of the added value that we as civil society bring to this process.  However, we are slightly discouraged by the fact that we are often not allowed in the rooms where the real negotiations are taking place.

The rules on observer participation promote that all negotiating sessions are open to observers in both contact groups and informals. The spirit of the SBI discussions over the past years led us to believe that we might expect to enter the rooms. When the doors are closed to us, we call on all parties in the room to systematically ask their colleagues whether there is a compelling reason preventing the holding of a transparent session.

The graph below demonstrates the stark reality NGOs faced last just June. Despite the SBI encouraging enhanced participation, civil society spent a significant amount of time wandering aimlessly through the Maritim corridors, engaging in more conversations with the ghosts of classical musicians its room are named for than with negotiators. (Though ECO is quick to note that Listz's views on technology transfer are particularly nuanced.)

You can trust us, we are currently MRVing the compliance of parties' commitment to “openness, transparency and inclusiveness”. Because, really, there is only so much one can observe from the corridors.

Related Newsletter : 

Pages

Subscribe to Tag: Kyoto