Tag: CBDRRC

Looking for Ambition in Warsaw and Beyond? Tune In to Equity

Submitted by MBrockley on June 14, 2013 - 1:33am

ECO is very pleased to note that the volume on CAN’s proposal for the Equity Reference Framework has been turned up at the Bonn session. ECO now asks Parties that they go back home and add it to their favourite playlists to keep them inspired between now and September, when they will turn in submissions on what architecture they foresee for a successful outcome in Paris.

Through this session and at the ADP2 (April/May), Parties have made it clear that the “principles of the Convention will apply and need no reinterpretation in the 2015 agreement.” We are (doubly) delighted that Parties have identified this as common ground. Having said that, there is work to be done to ensure that these principles don’t just remain principles in the Convention and that they get translated into actions and commitments on the ground.

But we have less than a thousand days left between now and Paris. Keeping this in mind and reminding ourselves that there can be no ambition without equity, ECO had proposed a practical process to ensure that Parties have a clear understanding not just of how their commitments will together enable us to stay within a 2 degree C world, but also of how their fair shares can be formulated. This would mean that Parties develop a shared Equity Reference Framework that embodies the Convention’s core equity principles. As you might already know, ECO identified these to be: a precautionary approach to adequacy, CBDRRC and the right to sustainable development. Along with the latest science, these core principles, reflected in an agreed list of indicators, and including of course the call for developed countries to take the lead in climate mitigation, can be used as a benchmark when framing, setting and reviewing Parties’ mitigation and financial commitments.

ECO is excited about the level of response that this proposal has received, both through some Parties’ call for an Equity Reference Framework at the ADP plenary and the excellent turnout at the CAN side event. South Africa, Kenya, The Gambia on behalf of the LDCs – ECO warmly welcomes your constructive interventions on this matter. A special thanks to South Africa for a strong reminder to Parties during the closing plenary of the ADP for the need for a clear set of rules for fair and equitable effort sharing that would lead to equitable access to sustainable development. Brazil, Norway and EU – ECO welcomes your openness and interest and looks forward to more from you. ECO now encourages all parties, in their submissions to the ADP co-chairs ahead of Warsaw, to outline what criteria and indicators they think capture the equity principles as identified above. This would lead us to a Party led process with extensive expert input designed to get us to a workable framework for assessing both mitigation and finance commitments.

While we would have loved to have another meeting for Parties before Warsaw, this is not to be. However, we are excited to know our friends from the Nordic Council will be organising an entire meeting exclusively focused on the question of equity. We would love for this to be an open and inclusive meeting that takes on board experts and other stakeholders, so it can feed into Warsaw in a substantial manner. ECO thinks this exemplifies good leadership and welcomes and encourages more of such spaces and platforms for tuning into and turning up the volume on equity.

Tags:

Equity Reference Framework

Gambia

Topics:

Equity/effort-sharing

MBrockley's blog

On Equity: Part 1

Submitted by rvoorhaar on April 30, 2013 - 12:55am

ECO was positively surprised, during yesterday's ADP2 opening and the following workshop, hearing Parties expressing the fact that equity can't be neglected in the negotiations – a viewpoint that ECO shared long ago. Now that ECO and Parties have this common understanding on the importance of equity for the 2015 deal, let us suggest a way ahead: Parties should consider the equity spectrum approach.

Firstly, the core equity principles should be identified, such as the adequacy principle, CBDR+RC, the right to sustainable development and the precautionary principle. In the equity spectrum approach, the “equity index” would then be composed of a basket of more specific equity indicators. This basket would have to contain well-designed indicators that, taken together, measure both responsibility and capacity. It could include indicators for, inter alia, per capita income and standard of living, per capita emissions and historical responsibility, and domestic income inequality.

Once this basket of indicators is agreed, countries' mitigation pledges could be measured against this set. This would create the basis for assessing pledges in terms of their adequacy for staying below 2°C and keeping 1.5°C in reach, and in terms of a fair and equitable sharing of the mitigation burden and atmospheric space. In order to get this review done quickly, Parties should put their targets on the table by the meeting suggested by Ban Ki Moon in September 2014.

Such an approach would not preclude country groupings (like today’s annexes). In fact, it would make such groupings more coherent. For example, the set of countries that is high in capacity and responsibility would change over time – an important fact, given that such countries are candidates for ambitious, legally-binding, economy-wide quantified emissions reduction targets.

Of course many other kinds of commitments are also possible, and desirable. Obvious examples include renewable energy and/or energy efficiency targets and sectoral targets, all of which could have various kinds and degrees of bindingness. Also, it should be noted that some kinds of actions for certain countries can be explicitly contingent on financial and technical support.

Tags:

equity

CBDRRC

Topics:

Equity/effort-sharing

Related Event:

ADP Second Session 2013

rvoorhaar's blog

On Equity: Part 2

Submitted by rvoorhaar on April 30, 2013 - 12:34am

The following are excerpts from a particularly incisive intervention in the ADP workshop yesterday afternoon. In case you missed it, ECO suggests you take a look. And if you didn't miss it, ECO suggests you take a look anyway, since it's a subject Parties need to work much more on:

“What is needed is a process that would allow for a proper equity review of the pledges, to be conducted in parallel with the equally-critical science review. To that end, the Parties should launch an open, expert process to develop an equity reference framework that is suitable to the evaluation of national pledges. This framework would have to be designed to maximize both ambition and participation. Parties, when making pledges, would be guided by the knowledge that these would be evaluated within both the science and equity reviews.

How to think about such an equity review? The first point is that the demands of equity have already been agreed. This is true at the level of the Convention’s keystone text on CBDR & RC, and it’s true of the four fundamental equity principles – ambition, responsibility, capacity, and development need – that underlie the principle of CBDR & RC and, of course, our shared vision of 'equitable access to sustainable development' as well.

None of this is going to change. Nor should it. Climate, after all, is a global commons problem. The cooperation needed to solve it can only exist if the regime – as it actually unfolds in actions on the ground – is widely seen as being not only 'fair enough,' but an actual positive driver of developmental justice around the world.

What is needed is dynamic equity spectrum approach. This is our key point. And here I must note that a dynamic equity spectrum approach would be entirely consistent with the principles of the Convention, and in particular with the principle of CBDR & RC.

One final point. We do not have to agree to 'a formula' to have a way forward. Reasonable men and women can disagree about the indicators appropriate to, say, capacity. And if we approach the problem in good faith, we may yet find that all plausible, dynamic approaches to CBDR & RC yield approximately the same, or at least strongly overlapping results. Which might just be good enough, at least in the short term.

To sum up, we need a solid science review, we all know it. But we need an equity review as well, and on this front it will take some time to work out the details. But we already know the key thing – will not succeed without a deal that’s at least, as the Australians say, 'fair enough.' And the equity spectrum approach may just be the best way to get one.”

Tags:

equity

CBDRRC

ADP2

Topics:

Equity/effort-sharing

Related Event:

ADP Second Session 2013

rvoorhaar's blog

Banking on Bunkers

Submitted by Secretariat on September 2, 2012 - 8:30pm

Today, Parties will meet under the LCA Sectoral Approaches spin-off group for the last time before Doha to discuss how to address the fast-growing emissions from international transport. Parties must make sure Doha provides a signal to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) on how to reconcile the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDRRC) of Parties, with the practices and principles of these sectoral bodies, which have a long history of regulating ships and aircraft on the basis of equal treatment of all.

Negotiating positions of many parties have remained frozen in time for the past decade or so – sadly unlike the Arctic. For those who haven’t been hunkered down in bunkers, ECO will explain. At one end of the range there’s the US and Japan, who want the IMO and ICAO to proceed with no input from the UNFCCC. At the other end, a group of developing countries who want the UNFCCC principles to override those of the sectoral bodies, which are independent and autonomous bodies under the UNFCCC, thereby treating these inherently global sectors in the same way as nationally based emission sources. This could mean for example that ships owned or operated by companies based anywhere in the world could easily escape regulation simply by reflagging to another country to avoid compliance.

Singapore has presented a helpful compromise, saying that emissions from international aviation and shipping should be addressed through global measures under ICAO and IMO, while taking into account the principles and provisions of the UNFCCC. This is sensible and appropriate as far as it goes, but even more helpful would be to give an indication of how CBDRRC might be taken into account. It seems risky to leave the interpretation of UNFCCC principles entirely up to other bodies – after all, even seasoned climate negotiators find it tricky! The most promising way to address CBDRRC could be through provisions involving revenues and/or handling of allowances from a global multilateral approach. Differentiation in terms of revenues could allow, for example, support to improve energy efficiency and technology transfer and cooperation within the shipping sector. This can ensure any burden on developing countries is addressed appropriately, with the use of remaining revenues from developed countries for climate finance through the Green Climate Fund.

So there you have it, Parties. This would give you something to think about. But don’t take too long; remember this is your last day before COP18 and the ice is melting…

Tags:

Topics:

Region:

Related Event:

Bangkok Climate Change Conference 2012

Secretariat's blog