Tag: Convention

Taking the High Road to a Mandate

Submitted by Anonymous on December 1, 2011 - 11:15pm

ECO has long insisted it is necessary to agree a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. All developed countries under the KP should ratify their new 5-year QEROs (quantified emission reduction obligations), base year 1990, having a level of ambition consistent with a fair share towards their agreed 2º C goal. Yet it is clear that the multilateral system will need to evolve through time toward becoming a truly adequate, fair, legally binding global agreement.

The essential complement in Durban will be extension and clarification of the mandate of the AWG-LCA for a comprehensive legally binding agreement as the agreed outcome. This mandate must enhance implementation of the Convention, not overhaul it, building explicitly on and fully respecting its principles so that Parties do indeed, in a fair framework, fulfill the promise of the ultimate objective of the Convention: “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”.

This mandate at a minimum must include:

(1) The result of the negotiations, specifying that Parties are building on and moving beyond the Bali Action Plan’s “agreed outcome”, showing that the world is prepared to affirm and act on the ultimate objective of the Convention by working towards a legally binding instrument with legally binding commitments.

(2) Reaffirmation and full respect of the principles of the Convention to guide the negotiations, which must include equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, as well as environmental integrity and adequacy

(3) End date. ECO repudiates the calls from some Parties that negotiations should begin in 2015. Much needs to be done to develop essential elements of finance, adaptation, technology and of course mitigation going forward towards the legal agreement. Negotiations are not yet guided by a timeline or clear agreed goal. Agreement reached in 2015 would allow time not only to build a framework analogous to the Kyoto Protocol, but that span of time would allow more effective development of content closer to that achieved over the four years of negotiations between the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol and the Marrakesh Accords. And entry into force in 2018 would allow a more rapid response to new science.

(4) The scope, building on the Bali Action Plan, Cancun Agreement, and the Kyoto Protocol acquis.

(5) The process to fulfill the mandate.

ECO expects the Chair to address these principles in the draft legal decision text to come out of Friday’s ‘informal informal’ under the ‘principles’ bullet.

Ambition can and must be ratcheted up massively, in particular by developed countries, to jointly achieve real emissions reductions of at least 40% by 2020. A legally binding instrument under the AWG-LCA is needed to secure full participation by the US, which has repudiated the KP, the only existing international legally binding instrument to reduce emissions and ensure that responsibilities for technology and financing support for developing countries are made legally binding.

The mandate will also show that all Parties are taking action under common rules and guidelines that can showcase successes. The world must respond in a clear and unambiguous way to the urgency from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). A mandate is needed here in Durban to provide a common framework for these principles and dramatically scaled up response to our climate crisis.

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

CAN Position - Effort Sharing Principles - Nov 2011

Submitted by Anonymous on November 20, 2011 - 9:14pm

CAN_effort_sharing_principles_position_paper_22September2011.pdf

Countries agreed in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to prevent dangerous climate change: to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. At present they are failing in this task. One element holding back countries from the necessary action is the concern that they will be asked to do more than is their fair share, and conversely that other countries will ‘free ride’ off their effort. A common understanding of fair shares – even if it is only approximate – can help overcome this trust barrier and lead to higher levels of ambition from all.

CAN recommends to parties and the AWG Chairs that they take steps to proactively insert effort sharing into the negotiation framework in 2011 and 2012. COP17 should establish a mandate to agree an equitable effort sharing approach between all countries by COP18. Whilst an agreement on an equitable effort sharing approach should be the ultimate aim, any discussions that expand the shared understanding of a fair effort sharing approach have the potential to move the negotiations forward exponentially. Waiting for these discussions to take place is not, however, an excuse for countries to put off increasing their level of ambition. All countries[1] have an obligation to increase their ambition now – developed countries, with their woefully inadequate pledges, most of all.

[1]except for the Maldives and Costa Rica who are developing countries that have committed to becoming carbon neutral.

Tags:

common but differentiated responsibilities

right to sustainable development

adequacy

comparability of effort

Precautionary

Principle

R2SD

Topics:

Equity/effort-sharing

Organization:

Climate Action Network

CAN Positions

UNFCCC

The Adaptation Committee: A Direct Link to the COP is Crucial!

Submitted by Anonymous on June 11, 2011 - 3:42am

Good news, everybody! ECO is pleased to see that negotiations on the Adaptation Committee have started and that there are a number of convergences. Important elements for its procedures will be broad expertise, openness to observers, and a clear mandate to strengthen adaptation under the Convention. ECO also suggests that non- governmental stakeholders should be members to the Committee to harness their expertise.

In ECO ́s view, making the Adaptation Committee the driver for more coherence on adaptation under the Convention and for raising the profile of the issue will require direct reporting to the COP (with no detour through the SBs), which some developed countries question. There are good arguments for a direct link. Regarding effectiveness and efficiency, direct reporting of the Committee to the COP is one less loop to go through, than if it reports to SBI/ SBSTA and then subsequently to the COP. But there are also legal arguments. According to article 7.2(i) of the Convention, the COP can establish subsidiary bodies where deemed necessary, in addition to the SBI and SBSTA, which were created by the Convention itself. It has been done so in the past, when inter alia the LEG, the CGE and the EGTT were created, but without automatic hierarchy under SBI/SBSTA. The COP established the Adaptation Committee through the Cancún decision, so it can be regarded as another subsidiary body according to Art. 7.2(i). In terms of the LEG, the founding decision stipulates explicitly that it would report to SBI and SBSTA, but the Cancún decision on the Committee, on contrary, does not even mention the SBI or SBSTA. Since the Committee has been founded by a COP decision, reporting to the COP is the logical step to take. Another argument is that some of its provisions ask it to directly provide information for consideration by the COP. Taking these together, ECO is strongly convinced that the correct decision on this is clear, and will be taken in order to not be an obstacle in operationalising the Adaptation Committee in Durban.

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

Spinning off in Bangkok?

Submitted by Anonymous on June 9, 2011 - 2:33am

A little bird told ECO that today's LCA spin off groups are reason for concern. Unfortunately the compromise agenda that was adopted in Bangkok did not resolve the many differences of opinions between governments on what should be negotiated first. ECO learned that in the shared vision group there is a clear division over whether priority should be given to the two issues that are in the Cancún agreement, the global goal and peaking, or whether all important issues should be dealt equally. In the finance group there was clear division over whether the group should start discussion on fast start and long-term financing. And in the review group countries discussed whether the review should deal with the adequacy of the long-term goal as stated in the Cancún agreement, should review the full implementation of the Convention, or should review the Convention as such. ECO has always said that countries should implement Cancún undertakings, and go further on the road to building a real fair, ambitious and legally binding deal. Given the amount of time that has already been spent on agenda fights we feel countries should get on with the work at hand.

Tags:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog