Tag: ADP

Climate Action Network International Submission to ADP Chairs on Workstream 1: Post-2020

(a) Application of Principles of Convention

 
Equity, including a dynamic approach to common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDRRC), must be at the very heart of the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action Workstream 1 if it is to be able to deliver adequately for the climate. The internationally legally binding protocol now under negotiation must include common and accurate accounting, MRV, strong compliance and enforcement, all respecting the principles of equity, including CBDRRC. It must have fair targets and actions that are consistent with the strong likelihood of meeting a 2°C global carbon budget, and thus keeping 1.5°C budget within reach. It should build on, develop and improve the rules already agreed under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol.
 
The failure to consider equity principles for a global effort sharing agreement – an equitable approach to sharing the costs of mitigation and adaptation amongst countries – has been a stumbling block to agreeing sufficient ambition. Adaptation must be treated with the same importance as mitigation. Countries are concerned that they will be asked to do more than is their fair share, and conversely that other countries will ‘free ride’ off their efforts. A common understanding of fair shares can help overcome this trust barrier and lead to higher levels of ambition from all. Countries must urgently start their work to increase understanding of, and further agreement on, ways and options for the allocation of fair shares of the global effort.
 
Related Event: 

Climate Action Network International Submission to ADP Chairs on Workstream 2: Pre-­2020 Ambition

At successive UNFCCC meetings, Parties have acknowledged the existence of a multi-gigatonnes gap between the current level of ambition to mitigate emissions until 2020 (expressed in QELROs, pledges, targets and NAMAs) for the period until 2020 and what is required in that period to allow the world to stay below the critical 1.5/2°C threshold. According to the Climate Action Tracker, current pre-2020 ambition (expressed by countries in QELROs, pledges and NAMAs) puts the world onto a path of 2.7-4.2°C warming. There is a consensus within the scientific community that we are fast approaching a devastating tipping point. In this context it is alarming that governments have not taken any steps yet to close the gap but allow it to grow. According to UNEP, the estimated emissions gap in 2020 for a “likely” chance of being on track to stay below the 2°C target is 8 to 13 GtCO2e, while it was 6 to 11 GtCO2e in the 2011 report. Global emissions are currently 14 per cent above where they should be to have a likely chance to limit global warming to no more than 2°C.

 
Some Parties seem to hope to get away with misinterpreting “enhancing ambition” to mean to continue to mitigate after 2020, and to leave the current pre-2020 ambition gap untouched – at least as far as own action is concerned. This is a highly irresponsible assumption. Raising the ambition level of action before 2020 is a prerequisite to stay below the 1.5/2°C threshold.  
 
With sufficient political will, that is lacking for instance in the US, China, EU, Canada, Japan, Australia and Russia, emissions can be brought to a level by 2020 consistent with staying below the critical 1.5/2°C threshold. UNEP's “Bridging the Emissions Gap 2012” report asserts that this is possible and economically feasible, using existing, mature technologies. In fact it should be common knowledge by now that if nothing more is done to increase the current unconditional pledges, costs would be much higher to reach deeper reductions in later years and/or the adaptation needs would be far greater.

<more>

Related Event: 

Searching for Equity

 

ECO wants to remind the Parties thatembedding equity in the climate regime is fundamental to any fair and ambitious outcome. While Parties have expressed their views on how to move toward operationalising equity, this aspect is reaching the vanishing point in the texts.  
 
ECO thinks it would be pretty easy to measure, report and verify the disappearance of political will when Parties enter the negotiating rooms in the QNCC. That’s the real problem in these negotiations, as reflected in the weak language on equity in the latest texts from both the LCA and the ADP chairs. And that sends a very negative message to areas around the world struggling every day to survive against the adversities of climate impacts.
And yet, innovative and even transformative concepts are readily available.  
 
Recently, Belgium and Sweden convened a rich and interactive meeting of experts and stakeholders in Brussels. Indeed, the ideas discussed in the Brussels workshop are immediately relevant and can be transformed into workable forms in the negotiations. Once again, the message from workshop participants was loud and clear: what we are facing is not a dearth of ideas or resources but instead a pervasive vacuum of political will. 
One aspect of reviving momentum is to try out creative approaches. In Brussels, forexample, the open exchange of views under Chatham House rules provided a tool for creating trust and opening up space for dialogue. 
 
Before leaving Doha, negotiators must ensure that a safe space for equity discussions is created in a work programme on equity. That is crucial for ensuring a fair, ambitious and binding outcome in 2015. 
ECO has consistently expressed the need for taking up the equity issue with a view to unpacking and eventually operationalizing equity in the various elements. Let usremember COP 17, where India championed the issue of equity and took a central role in tying together the Durban Package. 
 
But now, the progress made in the ADP roundtables in Bangkok has been set aside in the discussions to date here in Doha.  To be clear, equity principles need to be discussed in order to move them forward in terms of populating the ADP with contentissues of operationalisation. Otherwise, equity will not move and we will yet again fall short of ambition. To say it clearly: there will be no ambition without equity – and no equity without ambition.
Related Newsletter : 

Closing the Loose Ends for Adaptation

As COP 18 welcomes Ministers from around the world, ECO would like to focus their attention on significant matters related to adaptation. May we have your attention, Ministers: adaptation needs are closing in fast!

National Adaptation Plans. These are intended to address medium and long term adaptation needs.
 
Let’s keep this short and sweet:
 
First, guidance to the Global Environment Facility is needed now. LDCs are committed, the technical guidelines are out, and there is clear willingness among other developing country Parties. So really, there’s no excuse for delays. 
 
Second, use those funding bodies. The LDCF and SCCF are ready, willing and able to be capitalized.  There’s no denying that more funding is needed and this must be additional to that of NAPAs. Otherwise, all the good and benevolent intentions of NAPs are completely without effect.
 
Loss and Damage.  
Political opportunity cannot be lost here:
 
As negotiators are running out of steam from all their work on the L&D text, ECO will pitch in to make sure that this reaches success.
 
These points should steer you in the right direction:
 
• Loss and damage needs to be given the political space that it deserves; negotiators must keep the political will to keep loss and damage high on the agenda.
 
• The work programme on loss and damage must be approved and continued, with assurance that discussions on an international mechanism will be a focal point.
 
• The text cannot shy away from rehabilitation and compensation – these are key to the loss and damage debate and so outcomes should provide guidance on how to address these aspects further.
 
Ministers need to admit that loss and damage is the unfortunate consequence of the failure to mitigate and the limited international support for adaptation. Now, instead of dwelling on the cause, we must act on the solutions and not let this text fall through the cracks.
 
Some parting words to Ministers on adaptation in the ADP and LCA:
 
ADP: Don’t forget the Cancun Adaptation Framework! ECO wants you to make sure that it’s regularly reviewed in the ADP in light of mitigation ambition and the needs of -- and support to -- developing countries.
 
LCA: Finance is key – this goes without saying. Instead of re-emphasizing the importance of finance for adaptation, ECO expects Ministers to guarantee its delivery without any further delay. There’s ample evidence to prove the existence of sufficient funds so make the commitment!
 
And so the strenuous effort to address loss and damage has a well defined path to success. Let us not fail to achieve it!
 
Related Newsletter : 

Instructions Enclosed for Non-Negotiable Planetary Deadline

Dear Ministers:

This is the non-negotiable planetary deadline. The recent UNEP and World Bank reports have been unequivocal: the window to stabilize temperature increase below 2° C, and thus avoid the most dangerous climate impacts, is closing rapidly. Durban set a number of other deadlines for Doha which must be respected. They include adoption of the amendments to the Kyoto Protocol, the successful closure of the LCA, and agreement on work programmes for both the 2015 Protocol negotiations and raising near-term ambition. So roll up your sleeves, Ministers: there is much to do!  As always, ECO has some helpful hints to make your week easier.

#1 Don’t cheat – it doesn’t help the climate or build confidence 

The amendments to the Kyoto Protocol must be adopted in Doha, progressing the only legally binding climate agreement in order to streamline the process. 

Keeping Kyoto alive is crucial for two reasons – first, it has key architectural elements that must be reflected in the 2015 Protocol. These include overall and national carbon budgets, economy-wide targets, common rules-based accounting, compliance and five year commitment periods. Second, it was part of the Durban package and its adoption will enable progress next year on both elements of the ADP -- its 2015 Protocol negotiations and near-term ambition. Pending its entry into force, it should be provisionally applied from1 January 2013.

But there are some things that should be left behind – the 13 gigatonnes of CO2eq ‘hot air’ from the first commitment period.  It does nothing for the climate and it’s high time to expel it from the system. The next COP President, Poland, must show leadership now and stop stalling efforts in the EU on this issue. 

The good elements of the Kyoto Protocol should not, however, remain the exclusive property of KP parties. We’re looking forward to our ‘ship jumpers’ in the LCA proving that they aren’t evading responsibility.  They can do so by agreeing the same accounting standards and setting carbon budgets here at Doha. 

#2 Face the issues head on

In 2015 the world must conclude a deal that matters for the climate. Parties will need to address two crucial questions: first, what do we need to do to avoid dangerous climate change; and second, how are we going to do that? 

In Doha, to help answer the first question, it is critical to agree on a review of the long-term temperature goal that focuses on exactly that, is narrow in scope, and takes placeunder a robust body. 

Given that equity and ambition are two sides of the same coin, we must also have a one year process exploring equity issues, reporting into the ADP at COP 19 and allowing the ADP to mainstream the progress.

Finally, confronting these issues head on means facing up to the impacts of climate change that are happening now.  Addressing loss and damage is essential to assure the most vulnerable countries that their future prospects are being fully protected. 

#3 Deliver the resources you promised

Vital work to adapt to climate change and transition to a low carbon economy cannot happen without resources.  So delivering on existing finance commitments and planning to meet additional needs must be at the heart of the Doha outcome. Committing to a minimum of $20 billion a year for the 2012-2015 period is the very minimum of the first stepsrequired.  

But in addition, ministers, you must also make sure there is a rigorous system to track the delivery of all money promised, ensuring that it is new and additional, and not quietly recycled from one vitally needed programme to pay for another.  

You must also commit to a political process with the weight to ensure that developed countries scale up climate finance to the promised level of $100 billion per year by 2020. We must not become bogged down in endless technical analysis -- there are already good options on the table. All that is needed to turn them into reality is political will.

Finance is not an add-on to our work on climate; it is what drives our work, and it’s what gives the victims of climate change at least a fighting chance in adapting to the impacts. Finance must be at the center of your attention in the new negotiations under the ADP.

#4 Be Ambitious!

Ministers, we expect you to increase your mitigation and finance ambition right here in Doha. The EU 20% has already been met, the Australian unconditional target of 99.5% is shamefully weak and the U.S. steers away from anything approaching something in the required scientific range.  

Meanwhile, ECO is still waiting to see even one finance figure for the post-2012 period. As a first step toward improving this woeful record, the EU should listen to the German Minister and increase its target to 30% here at COP 18.

The Doha outcome alone will not save the planet, so don't imagine your work is done when you get on the plane going home. The developed world will still need to increase its mitigation and finance ambition massively.  Because your work here will not nearly begin to fill the ambition gap in either area, you will also need to agree this week on both a high level and technical workplan to do so in 2013. 

We cannot afford to waste any more time. All countries need to capitalize on initiatives to raise ambition, whether inside or outside of the UNFCCC -- from reducing HFCs to phasing out fossil fuel subsides.  ECO is also waiting with bated breath for announcements from our Qatari hosts and Gulf neighbours on their contribution to the global effort.

Ministers: You are here to lay the foundations for a new Protocol.  You must therefore instruct your negotiators that they move in the middle of 2013 from conceptual brainstorming to concrete discussions, resulting in a ‘compilation text’  of proposals by COP19. Brainstorm and build -- that’s ECO’s motto!  The re-election of President Obama and the new leadership in China has created the potential for change.  Let’s capitalize on that in Doha and beyond. 

#5 Leave the laggards behind

The planet cannot wait for action. Some countries are clearly not serious about our common endeavor to address the threat of dangerous climate change. 

We cannot afford to wait for Russia, who won’t put a target on the table, but still wants any ‘goodies’ that might be around -- whether it means holding onto its ‘hot air’ or having access to revenues fromcarbon trading.  

We cannot allow the pace to be set by Canada, who failed to meet their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, and then withdrew in order to avoid the consequences.  

And New Zealand will need to make a choice -- is it serious about climate protection, or does it wish to be singled out as an obstacle to progress? These countries risk becoming increasingly sidelined, as the global community works to forge consensus on a new logic under the ADP.

Ministers, we need you to finish the work begun here in Doha. You must close the loopholes, deliver the money, addressissues head on, and map out a clear course for the negotiations under the ADP. Then you need to go home and act! 

Related Newsletter : 

CAN Intervention in the COP18 ADP Special Event on Top Down Approach, 2 December 2012

Intervention in the ADP Special Event on Top Down Approach, 2 December 2012

-Delivered by Alden Meyer

Thank you Chair.  I will limit my comments to initial thoughts on the work programme.  My colleagues would be very happy to address specifics in further interventions, for example a top-down approach vs bottom-up approach.         (For the record CAN supports a topdown approach). 

We know from Copenhagen that the “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach cannot deliver the outcome that we want.

One of the key tasks coming out of Doha is to have a clear workplan for 2013 and key miletones up to 2015 to give confidence both to Parties and citizens of the world that the ADP is indeed on track to deliver a fair, ambitious and legally binding agreement no later than 2015.

We are concerned that some Parties seem to think they can talk for all of 2013.  While we recognize that there needs to be a brainstorming/conceptual phase; there must be a clear transition at the June session towards focused discussions and initial negotiations so that in Warsaw you are in the position to produce a compilation text of the main elements based on submissions.  Moreover we need a negotiating text by COP20 that identifies the areas of convergence and divergence and the options where high level political input is needed. 

In addition to those procedural steps, the ADP workplan will need to create a balanced package of agreements at each COP. These decisions need to be made taking into account developments in relevant work streams and bodies.

 For example, the IPCC and the Review should provide regular updates and interim reports into the  ADP.

The scientific case for urgent action is clear, we think there is renewed leadership potential given the second term of President Obama, a new Chinese leadership and other developments.

In 2013, brainstorm, but start building.

CAN Intervention on ADP Workstream 2 in the COP18 ADP Special Event, 1 December, 2012

Intervention in ADP Special Event on ADP Workstream 2, 2 December 2012

Delivered by Jan Kowalzig

Thank you chair. 
 
Workstream 2 should build on three broad pillars.
 
The first and most important pillar would address the inadequate level of ambition especially by developed countries that are undermining the survival of entire nations. Removing conditions around pledges or ranges is needed, but going beyond current pledges will be unavoidable to move developed countries into the 25-40% range and beyond. 2013 should see submissions form Parties an Observers and technical papers on existing potentials to increase pledges. This can prepare, but not replace, a high level ministerial process that must begin here in Doha at next week’s ministerial roundtable and should also include a ministerial level discussion in Bonn in 2013 and a leaders’ summit no later than 2014.
 
Another pillar, as suggested by Parties, should look at complementary activities outside the UNFCCC context, for instance action on HFCs (via the Montreal Protocol), or international bunker fuels and notably action to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.
 
Concretely: Where a “home” for those options exists, such as the IMO, ICAO or the Montreal Protocol, there is no need to wait. Doha should request those bodies to urgently take up work.
 
2013 should see submissions from Parties and Observes on further complementary activities. Focus should be on those that are additional to existing pledges and not the vehicles to implement them, as in such a case the ambition gap doesn’t get any smaller. A technical paper on complimentary activities should analyse the overlap with, or additionality to, existing pledges.
 
Yet another pillar of the workstream 2 should look at what is needed to enable developing countries to submit pledges and NAMAs if they haven’t done so yet, especially for countries with economic capacity comparable to some (less wealthy) developed countries and growing responsibility. We see next week’s ministerial roundtable as a great opportunity for such new pledges or NAMAs. Beyond Doha, this second pillar will also require a process to identify the needs for means of implementation to prepare, and later implement, pledges or NAMAs.
 
On all three pillars, Doha should agree a clear timeline of work. Technical input should be sought, including the UNEP emissions gap report and its updates, as well as submissions by Parties and Observers.

Topics: 

CAN Intervention on Equity in the COP18 ADP Special Event, 1 December, 2012

CAN Intervention in the ADP Special Event on Equity, 1 December 2012

Delivered by Mohamed Adow

We heard the loud and clear call for urgent and ambitious international agreement. But the question is – what can enable the parties to agree to such an agreement?
 
CAN believes that an agreement on effort sharing – an equitable approach to sharing the costs of mitigation and adaptation amongst countries – would enable parties to agree such an agreement, with sufficient mitigation and finance to support the developing countries.
  
Countries are concerned that they will be asked to do more than is their fair share, and conversely that other countries will ‘free ride’ off their effort.  

CAN believes that we are in a rather unique position in the negotiations at the moment, and we think this is the moment to pull together a strategic approach that can lead to an effective and ambitious outcome in 2015 under the ADP.

One that will protect the climate system; share the effort to address climate change fairly; and share the means of implementation equitably

To deliver the ADP vision under Work Stream 1, Parties must work to interactively exchange their views and positions on equity and start a work programme  and make clear progress towards ways and options for the allocation of fair shares of the global effort.

CAN believes that it is helpful to cluster the various equity principles into three groups:
* Precautionary or adequacy principles – because a climate catastrophe would be the ultimate injustice,
* CBDR+RC, which remains key, but must be interpreted and operationalized dynamically,  
* Equitable Access to Sustainable Development – because just and sustainable development is human rights that must be both protected and promoted by the climate regime.  
Parties should not use equity to avoid action and share failure, but as the convention says “protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind

To achieve this, the ADP WS 1 goal must be to cooperatively limit climate disruption, while supporting the developing countries with the means to keep within the remaining constrained carbon budget, and to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. 

Tags: 

No Ambition without Equity - no Equity without Ambition

In both ADP workstreams, Parties have begun taking positions on the future of CBDR. Some see a global spectrum approach as the way forward. Others advocate a system in which the annexes are nuanced and differentiated. Whatever happens, ECO sees the need for a dynamic system that differentiates on the basis of equity principles. 

 
ECO believes that it is helpful to cluster the various equity principles into three groups:
 
* Precautionary or adequacy principles – because  climate catastrophe would be the ultimate injustice
 
* CBDR+RC, which remains key, but must be interpreted and operationalised dynamically
 
* Equitable Access to Sustainable Development – because just and sustainable development are human rights that must be both protected and promoted by the climate regime.  
 
Why wouldn't Parties want to discuss these principles within a separate, one-year work programme, with the intention of operationalising them? Such a work programme must inform the ADP streams on near-term and post-2020 ambition. ECO calls for a COP decision on this equity work programme to be taken at Doha. The Shared Vision contact groups should prepare this decision.
 
One way or another, Parties have got to find the space to build greater understanding of one another’s positions if they are to identify areas of convergence. As they do so, the renewed trust that will be fostered could trigger higher ambition from all sides, especially in the near-term ambition track of the ADP. There is no time to waste. 
 
 
Related Newsletter : 

Ending the subsidy silence

Earlier this year, ECO was delighted to read submission upon submission referencing the potential for removing fossil fuel subsidies to contribute substantially to pre-2020 mitigation ambition. In fact, it was so exciting that we counted the countries represented by these submissions. Turns out, over 110 countries supported submissions calling on fossil fuel subsidy reform to be included as an option for raising mitigation ambition.

Well, Thursday morning it seemed as though many parties had forgotten about these submissions, only a few months after they were sent in. Despite hours of discussion, fossil fuel subsidies seemed to not have made it into the morning’s ADP workstream 2 discussions.
 
Fortunately, not all countries have fully forgotten this issue, though, and yesterday afternoon’s ADP session provided some hope. ECO would like to thank the Philippines, Costa Rica and Switzerland for recognizing this important opportunity for additional pollution reductions.  (ECO would also note rumours that the US and Mexico referred to fossil fuel subsidy reform in other sessions in recent days as well).
 
The IEA has told us that removing fossil fuel subsidies could close the mitigation gap by nearly one half between existing pledges and what’s needed by 2020 to put us on a path to limit global warming to 2 degrees.  
 
Of course, ending fossil fuel subsidies is not going to be easy, but the first step is to recognize the potential and begin the work. Rich countries should end their subsidies to producers first, and as quickly as possible. Developing countries should be supported in developing plans to remove their subsidies for fossil fuels in such a way that ensures protections for the poor as well as  improvements in access to energy.
 
It’s been over 3 years since the G20 and APEC countries agreed to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, and the Rio conference on sustainable development earlier this year also pointed to fossil fuel subsidy reform.  The ADP can help push these efforts further by acknowledging fossil fuel subsidy reform as a means to achieve greater pre-2020 mitigation ambition.
Related Newsletter : 

Pages

Subscribe to Tag: ADP