Having COP18 in Qatar presents a unique opportunity to move forward with mitigation and adaptation efforts for climate change in the region, as well as for climate finance. With this in mind, ECO is calling for leadership from the Arab states beyond the conference hall.
A good agreement in Doha requires considerable progress on mitigation issues. For 2012 there are four tracks for action that are in play and need to be utilized to the full. The needed decisions include:
- Clarification of which countries will have quantified emission reduction commitments in Annex B in CP2: all developed countries should have their action anchored within the KP architecture. The agreement by the EU, Norway and Switzerland and others to be good faith actors is welcomed. Australia and New Zealand in particular should commit to take action in CP2
- Increase developed country pledges within the KP: Developed countries should, by COP18/CMP8, increase their 2020 pledges so that the combined effort, with the developed country pledges under the LCA, moves into the 25-40% range. Translating pledges into QEROs must not lead to further de facto weakening of the pledges.
- Agree the full package of amendments need for a ratifiable outcome: the complete package of KPamendments need to be adopted in Doha, so CP2 can be ratified and enter into effect in 2013. The package of amendments will need to be provisionally applied pending ratification.
- Agree a KP adjustment procedure to increase pledges This should allow (real) unilateral increases in ambition and for ratcheting up of all Annex B QEROs following adequacy reviews.
- Close and/or narrow existing loopholes and avoid new loopholes opening up in the KP
- Make the KP mechanisms fairer and more environmentally robust: Strengthen additionality and baseline rules for CDM and JI, require mandatory sustainable development monitoring for the CDM and eliminate JI track 2.
CAN delivered a presentation to further the understanding of the diversity of nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties, underlying assumptions, and any support needed for implementation of these actions.
My name is Manjeet Dhakal and I am from Nepal.
Climate change is already melting glaciers and putting my community at risk.
The following urgent action is needed to close the ambition gap and keep
warming at a level that my country can adapt to – no more than 1.5 degrees.
Firstly developed countries must move to the top end of their pledged ranges.
Secondly, at your next meeting, identify a pathway for developed countries to
increase ambition to more than 40% by 2020 and make this target a
milestone in low carbon development strategies. Show us how you will
decarbonise your economies!
Developing countries can also contribute to global ambition, by more clearly
identifying assumptions, and beginning a process to agree guidelines for
business as usual baselines. Developing countries should then articulate
how much their mitigation effort could increase with financial and
technological support. Clearly, further technical work is necessary on the
NAMA registry before Durban, to understand how developing country
mitigation effort will be recorded and supported.
If negotiations continue on their current path there is a danger we will create a
Green Climate Fund without any funds! The current commitments for climate
finance in 2013 are zero. Parties should provide submissions, and hold
workshops before Durban, on mid and long term sources of funding –
including supplementary innovative sources, such as bunker levies, financial
transaction taxes and special drawing rights. Including a discussion on
CBDR, no net incidence and compensation. We do not want to fall off the cliff
of fast start finance, only to see the mountain of long term finance in front of
Do you sometimes wake up at night, thinking: I wish I knew what a credited NAMA was...? (If you do, you’ve clearly been here far too long - ECO recommends a cup of herbal tea and a walk along the Rhine.) Sadly, you are not alone. The wonderfully fuzzy clouds called NAMAs (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions) are taking shape without anyone really knowing how the three oft-mentioned types of NAMAs should co-exist. By this ECO means: ‘unilateral’ NAMAs, mitigation action implemented solely by developing countries; ‘supported’ NAMAs, mitigation action financially supported by donor countries; and ‘credited’ NAMAs, actions that, like the CDM, result in some form of trade-able carbon credits. Seems distinct enough, but upon further reflection, ECO has some nagging questions about credited NAMAs:
- What role do parties envisage for the new market-based mechanisms in a NAMA framework?
-What role will CDM play? Will new mechanisms be complementary to CDM or will they replace CDM?
– Who will ensure the quality and accounting of offsets coming from any new market mechanisms?
Some things we already know: The different NAMAs have to be clearly defined to avoid double counting of the emission reductions and the finance provided. A governance structure is required to ensure sound MRV so that we can truly move towards closing the perilous emissions gap we are facing. It is essential that new mechanisms will not lead to greater offsetting opportunities for developed countries. Clearly, there is a lot to figure out before we will know if NAMAs are going to be a troubling dream that resolves by morning or a nightmare we never wake up from.
By the way, do you ever wonder (sometime in the hazy night) how “Low Carbon Development Plans” relate to NAMAs?!
Yesterday’s second mitigation workshop put the spotlight on developing country actions. ECO was intrigued that developed countries didn’t use the opportunity to get payback for being grilled the day before on their pledges. This may have been, ECO speculates, because many developed countries are quite aware that their own pledges are pathetically below the 25-40% range, and full of loopholes. It may also be that developed countries have to admit that several of the developing countries, even if they haven’t yet pulled out all the stops, are much closer to their fair share of the global effort than their developed country friends. ECO would welcome such recognition but must insist that the gaping gigatonne gap is there because of a lack of ambition on many sides.
ECO was pleased by greater clarity by South Africa and India on the level of finance needed to implement developing country pledges. This may have helped remind developed countries that, as part of their fair share of the global mitigation effort, they need to support (through finance, technology and capacity building) ambitious mitigation actions by developing countries.
In order to ensure environmental integrity, ECO agrees with several developed country Parties that greater clarity on the assumptions behind business-as-usual baselines would help to bridge the trust deficit between countries. It would also go a long way to building trust to have a process under the UNFCCC to assess overall developed and developing country contributions to our global mitigation goals. ECO supports the Mexican notion that international guidance for establishing such baselines may be a next step to take en route to Durban. The suggestion to convert the long lists of NAMAs into information on expected economy wide emission levels would also be useful, with special treatment for LDCs and SIDS due to their particular circumstances.
Now that the two workshops are over, ECO expects Parties to feed the reports of both workshops into the LCA and KP negotiations. We support the Brazilian proposal that these workshops should have a connection to negotiations around ambition and finance. On the design of upcoming workshops ECO invites Parties to make future presentations more focused on the actual questions that need answers, e.g. assumptions behind pledges or baselines or crystal clear explanations on emissions accounting. This would enable better use of time and allow concrete conclusions to guide negotiations. Workshops could also benefit from more detailed presentations from experts and stakeholders, as well as their inclusion in ensuing discussions.
Next, ECO strongly suggests developed country Parties make submissions before Bonn on their assumptions on LULUCF accounting, AAU banking and access to international credits.
Developing countries should make submissions on the assumptions behind their BAU projections, including information on key factors such as energy use and prices, economic development, population, etc. ECO suggests that the secretariat paper focus on these assumptions.
Workshops in Bonn should then cover potential policy measures developed countries could undertake to go beyond current inadequate pledges and common guidelines for methodologies and assumptions underpinning the definition of BAUs – to get a better understanding of the combined effort of all Parties.
Yet, if it were not already crystal clear, there is one key message that ECO believes the workshops made obvious: Parties urgently need to address the gigatonne gap, and soon. And hey, why not start here in Bangkok, in order to produce substantial progress by Durban.