Tag: CAN intervention

CAN Intervention - Opening KP - 5 April 2011

Opening LWG-KP Plenary – Bangkok
CAN intervention, April 5, 2011

Thank you Mr. Chair,

My name is Sven Harmeling. I’m speak on behalf of the Climate Action Network.
The KP track’s work this year can play an important role in narrowing the gigatonne gap.        According to UNEP, this gap could be up to 9 Gigatonnes in 2020 globally, equivalent to the combined annual emissions of China and Russia. CAN urges higher ambition than that assumed by UNEP, so sees an even bigger chasm between the pledges and needed action.

To help close the gap, first, Parties need to address the loopholes we heard about in        Sunday’s workshop, used perversely by some to stall their own low-carbon transformation.

o LULUCF rules should increase accountability and such that these sectors deliver        emissions reductions.  This means:
•    Not using questionable projected reference levels but using historical reference levels.
•    Not hiding emissions but accounting for all emissions, including other land uses such as cropland and grazing land management, and rewetting and drainage.

o Rules for any new market and non market mechanisms shouldn’t diminish already low        levels of ambition and must not allow double counting, ensuring additional emissions reductions and funding flows.
o  Rules are needed to minimise environmental damage from hot air.
Once these loopholes are closed, Parties need to increase their aggregate pledges so that they add up to more than 40% - top end of the 25-40% range that you acknowledged in Cancun. This is needed to put us on a pathway with a reasonable probability of achieving the well-below 2C goal, and keep the 1.5C goal in reach.
Additionally, CAN would like to take this opportunity to remind Parties of some of the        quite-literally vitally important elements of the KP architecture that need to be conserved and developed post-2012,  namely its:
o    long-term viability as a framework that can be appropriately updated for each commitment period;
o    aggregate goal for developed countries, allowing appropriate consideration of the science;
o    legally-binding, economy-wide, absolute emissions reduction targets;
o    common accounting, MRV and compliance.

We urge Parties not to throw away the good work of the last 14 years, and to commit to a second          commitment period in Durban.

CAN intervention - COP Agenda Item 5: Article 17 - COP 16 - 1 December 2010

Madam President, Distinguished Delegates,

My name is Yang Ailun from China. I am speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network, a global network of over 500 NGOs.

Today you have an opportunity to establish a process to resolve one of the many vexing problems that is contributing to the inability of these negotiations to make substantial progress towards a Fair, Ambitious and Legally Binding outcome. 

CAN has consistently supported an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol that will establish a second commitment period – thus preserving the legal and institutional structure we have all worked so hard to build. 

At the same time, the COP has a chance to establish a contact group to consider the proposals that have been on the table for over a year now, that reflect different approaches to the legal form of the outcome of the LCA negotiations. 

We urge you to establish a contact group now to consider these proposals in an open and transparent manner with a view to providing greater focus to the negotiations going into Durban next year. 

Without clarity as to where the negotiations are heading, it will be hard to get there.

CAN intervention - CMP Agenda Item 5 - 1 December 2010

Dear Chair,

My name is Irina Stavchuk of the National Ecological Center of Ukraine. I am speaking on behalf of the Climate Action Network.

We are concerned about the carry-over of surplus Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) from the 1st commitment period. Estimates place this surplus at 7 to 11Gt CO2e, or roughly one third of current 2020 emissions reduction targets pledged by Annex I countries. Thus, surplus AAUs have the potential to undermine the environmental integrity and effectiveness of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. 

This problem can be addressed by replacing Paragraph 13 of Article 3. We advocate setting a stringent discount factor, so that the annual average level of emissions carried over is severely restricted.  These limited number of AAUs that have been carried over may only be used domestically in surplus holding countries for compliance in the next commitment period.

Let's be honest: the huge Kyoto surplus in Ukraine and Russia arose from a mistake in the estimate of projected business-as-usual scenario and not due to the implementation of effective climate change mitigation policies.

If the issue of surplus AAUs is not adequately addressed, developed countries can continue on a business-as-usual pathway. CAN questions the continuation of international emissions trading as a mechanism after 2012 if the Kyoto surplus issue is not fully addressed.

There are no excuses for not addressing the issue of surplus AAUs here in Cancun.


CAN Intervention - KP Closing Plenary - 6 Aug 2010

Kyoto Protocol: Closing Plenary
CAN intervention

6th August 2010

Distinguished Delegates,

Tuesday's workshop left no doubt that we are on the way to exceeding the dangerous
threshold of 1.5 degrees if current Annex B pledges become their commitments for the
second period and current loopholes remain.
The projected abatement shortfall is between 7 and 10 Gigatonnes.
If you want to come to a global agreement to avoid dangerous climate change, you will
take any opportunity close this gap.
We hear a lot in this working group about the importance of the other track. To the
Annex B parties assembled here our message is simple. If you wish to secure progress in
the LCA track in December, you must act here. You must commit to the second
commitment period of this hard-won Protocol. You must indicate before the next
negotiating session, your intention to do so. The effect this has on both tracks in these
negotiations will be worth it.
Only by doing so will the other outcomes you seek so intensely, and which the global
community at large seeks to intensely, be achieved.
The Kyoto Protocol is crucial to the world's efforts to successfully limit climate change.


CAN intervention - REDD - COP 13,

Intervention given by Paula Moreira on behalf of CAN in Bali on REDD issues

Thank you for this opportunity, my name is Paula Moreira from IPAM Brazil, The Amazon Institute for Environmental Research

The Climate Action Network International believes that:

  • To avoid the worst impacts of human-induced climate change, average global surface temperature rise needs to be stabilized as far below 2C above pre-industrial levels as possible. Keeping climate change below these levels is critical to the protection of tropical forests.
  • Global emissions must peak and begin to decline in the coming decade and reducing emissions from deforestation has a key role to play in achieving this goal.
  • The question is no longer whether deforestation should be addressed as part of the evolving global climate change regime, but rather, how this can be done most effectively and rapidly, while:
  1. Ensuring equitable and fair incentives to Indigenous and forest people and
  2. Protecting their land rights and customary land.
  • CAN’s objective is to ensure that the development of policies and mechanisms will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation at the national level; fast enough to prevent dangerous climate change. 
  • Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation must:
  1. enhance the environmental effectiveness and improve the integrity of the climate change regime;
  2. be accompanied by deeper and additional cuts in fossil fuel emissions by developed countries after 2012. 
  • Developed countries must provide substantial resources for capacity building and technology transfer for effective monitoring, measurement and implementation of national and conservation legislation. 
  • It is therefore essential that the Bali Mandate includes ambition, content, process and a timetable for negotiating a mechanism that provides incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation.   

CAN Intervention - AWG Opening - December 3rd 2007

CAN intervention AWG Monday 3 December 2007 4:30-6 pm

Mr. Chair, excellencies, distinguished delegates, welcome to Indonesia and Bali (say also in Bahasa Indonesia). Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the over 400 member organizations of the Climate Action Network, my name is Elshinta Suyoso Marsden of WWF-Indonesia.

2007 has been a remarkable climate year already. You have a unique opportunity, indeed responsibility, to crown this year with a Bali mandate that truly delivers on the personal commitments made by almost 100 heads of state to avoid dangerous warming through a post-2012 climate deal.

Like never before, the climate crisis is now in the public spotlight and expectations are very high for this meeting.

The combination of high population density and high levels of biodiversity together with a staggering 80,000 kilometers of coastline and 17,500 islands, makes Indonesia one of the countries most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The impacts are noticeable throughout our Asia-Pacific region; more frequent and severe heat waves, floods, extreme weather events and prolonged droughts will continue to lead to increased injury, illness and death. Continued warming temperatures will also increase the number of malaria and dengue fever cases and lead to an increase in other infectious diseases as a result of poor nutrition due to food production disruption.

The IPCC reports are unequivocal about the impacts the world will experience if we continue down the current path. The IPCC also shows we have the technologies and policy measures we need in order to avoid dangerous climate if, but only if, immediate action is taken.

The Climate Action Network (CAN) wishes to be quite clear in its demands, what we need from Bali is industrialized country leadership - putting warm words into cool action, and living up to commitments, old and new. We also need incentives from industrialized countries to enable developing countries to increase their contributions and do their fair share. This will require new mechanisms that substantially increase the use of low-carbon technologies in developing countries, and other mechanisms to greatly scale-up financial and technological support for adaptation.

The signal from Bali must be clear: a comprehensive negotiation must be launched. This must result, by the end of 2009, in an agreement on substantially greater emissions reductions globally, consistent with achieving the target of staying well below 2 degrees Celcius of warming from pre-industrial levels.

As to the negotiation process under the Kyoto track:
The first task of the AWG is to agree in Bali the indicative range of emissions reductions required from Annex I. CAN believes the scientific basis established by the IPCC commands the reductions will be at least within the currently proposed range of -25 to -40% of 1990 emissions by 2020.

We need to expand the workplan of the Ad-Hoc Working Group (AWG) to include, amongst others, the following important issues related to Annex I commitments beyond 2012.

  • deep emissions reductions in Annex I countries
  •  fair and transparent target sharing criteria for Annex I
  •  analysis of the existing flexible mechanisms
  •  exploration of the scale and modes of finance, investment and technology transfer
  •  expansion of Annex A to include emissions from shipping and aviation

The following para was not delivered but distributed to delegates as part of the printed statement, at the request of the UNFCCC.

As to the Convention track, there is a real need to formalise the Dialogue. As Brazil stated in Bonn: “Discussions in the absence of negotiations cannot prosper”. The lessons from the Dialogue must be taken up in formal negotiations under the Convention that explore how industrialized countries will incentivise the enhanced actions by developing country to decarbonise their development.

The mandate for this working group on the Bali roadmap should include, amongst others, the following important elements:

  • the overall level of ambition, based on a review of the best-available science, to keep global temperature increases as far below 2ºC as possible
  • launching negotiations to increase the contributions from developing countries
  • a fair and equitable process to define the fair share of each country
  • rapidly increasing support for the most vulnerable to adapt to unavoidable climate impacts
  • technology cooperation
  • a mechanism to guarantee reliable incentives to rapidly reduce absolute emissions from tropical deforestation and degradation in developing countries, which recognises the rights of Indigenous Peoples and the sovereignty of developing countries over their forests
  • an effective compliance regime.

Delivery resumed here...

Formal negotiations on both the Convention and Kyoto track should be concluded in 2009, to allow sufficient time for agreement to enter into force before the 31st of December 2012.

If global emissions are to peak by 2015, as the IPCC reports shows they should, what we agree in Bali is absolutely critical.

Do we condemn ourselves to suffer the litany of irreversible dangerous climate impacts laid out in the IPCC report, or do we embrace a sustainable future?

Negotiators, the world is looking to you to make the right decisions.


CAN Intervention - LCA Opening Plenary - April 9, 2010

Distinguished Delegates, today I speak on behalf of the Climate Action Network.

My name is Raju Chetri. I am from Nepal, and the future of my family and my people depends on the success of these negotiations. Yet I have only one minute to tell you what civil society wants from the LCA track.

The emissions reduction pledges made by many of you before and since Copenhagen, if met, would raise global average temperatures by above three degrees.

What would be the impact of that be on a vulnerable country like Nepal?

How can we survive that impact, when attempts by vulnerable countries to create an insurance mechanism to shield us from disaster have been blocked?

But we are not the only ones that will suffer from climate change. When your grandkids come and ask you where you were, when the future of the planet was decided, could you honestly say you were pushing as hard as you could - to get this issue resolved as soon as possible?

We have had enough of your time-wasting. You know what you need to do this year. Cut pollution so that global emissions peak by 2015. Provide the support that we need to cope with the problem you are exacerbating. Make the decision in Cancun. Do this, and give us back our future.

Thank you.



Subscribe to Tag: CAN intervention