French Tianjin 2010, ECO 3
Submitted by MBrockley on
Submitted by MBrockley on
Submitted by Anonymous on
One may well wonder, what could the climate change debate possibly learn from other fields? ECO looked around a bit and discovered some interesting things about the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
The recent replenishment meeting of the Global Fund ended earlier this week in New York. And despite the lingering recession in many parts of the world economy, the respective contributions resulted in pledges of $11.7 billion over the next three years, an increase of 20% compared to 2008-2010. That is good news and shows that the international community is still able to take action when urgent global challenges have to be addressed.
Of particular note for the climate debate is that the Global Fund is the pioneer in direct access. Donors seem to trust its approach, which so far has financed programmes in 140 countries. The United States is #1 among donors and has pledged $4 billion for the next period.
Furthermore, the Global Fund has some innovative institutional features which ECO thinks should be considered in the setup of the new climate fund.
First, the Fund itself is an administratively autonomous international financing institution, with its own Secretariat based in Geneva. The only formal link to an existing institution is that the World Bank serves as Trustee. The Global Fund was set up very quickly, with the Secretariat being established six months after the principal decision to establish the Fund, and the first grants were approved three months later.
On the national level, multi-stakeholder country coordinating mechanisms are the key players. These include the government and stakeholders such as NGOs, scientists and the private sector. This is an instructive example given the diverse responses that climate change will require on all levels of society in developing countries.
On the international level, the Fund is steered by a board composed of 20 voting members – 14 from governments/regional organisations and one each for the private sector, private foundations, developing country NGO, developed country NGO, and a representative from local communities. Representatives from international organisations are members of the Board without voting rights. It is a global partnership to
address a true global challenge.
Of course, the climate fund can’t just be a copy of the Global Fund. For one thing, the scale of climate resources must very soon be significantly higher than the $3 billion a year in the Global Fund budget.
In order to fully prepare for the future, one must learn from the past. For instance, the US proposal, supported to some degree by other countries, that would set up the climate fund as a kind of reinvention of the GEF, does not do so. Instead, the future climate architecture should take note of lessons like those offered by the Global Fund.
Submitted by Anonymous on
The El Nino/La Nina-related monsoon floods that have devastated Pakistan since July highlight the fast growing need for an international risk transfer mechanism for weather-related events.
With the sheer size and protracted duration of the disaster, as well as donor
fatigue, disaster response funding has fallen far short of the mark in Pakistan’s time of need. UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon bemoaned the fact that too little aid is coming too late to help the estimated 21 million homeless and flood-affected people of Pakistan.
How could an international insurance mechanism within the UNFCCC process help in case of such events? The first step is to link serious risk reduction measures to wider climate risk management strategies.
The second is to ensure that an international insurance approach, supported by the international community, catalyses adaptation and risk management in countries facing rising climatological risks. The benefits
should include incentives focused on risk reduction, and advance planning for adequate
financial resources when and where they are needed.
Experience has shown that insurance mechanisms can make payouts rapidly. In the Caribbean, CCRIF insurance payouts were the first to reach Haiti after the calamitous earthquake – a month before humanitarian donations began flowing.
One challenge is the difficulty of guaranteeing that insurance payouts will be used
effectively and appropriately by participating governments. One way to address this concern is to establish national climate change funds to serve as the recipient of
international insurance payments. Bangladesh has such a fund, governed by a multistakeholder committee (rather than a government ministry). In this approach, payment distribution modalities can be devised before disaster strikes. This also complements wider adaptation strategies by encouraging the coherence of risk management strategies and ex ante planning.
Chapter 2, paragraph 8 of the AWG-LCA text considers the establishment of international insurance coverage as one function of a broader mechanism to address loss and damage from climate change. Devastating events – the flooding in Pakistan is an exemplary case – underscore the urgency. This kind of mechanism should be one of the operational elements of the adaptation framework negotiated in the UNFCCC process and should be financed from a share of international funds provided for adaptation.
Finally, setting up regional pilot programs through fast-start finance could generate important lessons on the specific operational modalities of such a mechanism. That will catalyse adaptation, promote more effective risk management, and support humanitarian efforts in vulnerable countries.
Submitted by Anonymous on
In this Issue:
Submitted by MBrockley on
Media Advisory
October 6, 2010
Building Blocks for a Cancún Package
Presentation by CAN International
[Tianjin, China] CAN International will propose and detail a package of achievable
and fair decisions for countries to adopt at the upcoming UNFCCC talks in Cancún,
Mexico, on Wednesday, October 6, 18:00 – 19:30, in room Yinchuan, Meijing
Conference Centre, Tianjin, China.
Parties to the talks currently underway in Tianjin, China, are increasingly calling
for adoption of a “balanced package” in Cancún. The Building Blocks proposal
by CAN International details the components that could plug into such a feasible
yet fair package, one that would provide the foundation for final deal a year later
in South Africa. The Cancún Building Blocks proposal also provides a yardstick
for measuring the fairness and environmental integrity of any deal reached in
Cancún.
The presentation will include formal response by respondents from several
country delegations.
CAN panel:
• David Turnbull, CAN-International
• Wendel Trio, Greenpeace International
• Sandra Guzman, Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA)
• Raju Pandit Chhetri, United Mission to Nepal (UMN)
• Niranjali Amerasinghe, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
What: Presentation of a fair, balanced and achievable package for Cancún
Where: Room Yinchuan, Meijing Conference Centre, Tianjin
When: 18:00 – 19:30, Wednesday, Oct. 6
Who: CAN International representatives and respondents from country delegations
Climate Action Network (CAN) is a global network of over 500 non-governmental
organizations working to limit climate change to sustainable levels. For more
information go to: www.climatenetwork.org.
Contact: Hunter Cutting: +1 415-420-7498
###
Submitted by MBrockley on
Submitted by MBrockley on
Submitted by Anonymous on
Whilst parties are coming to the realisation that we need to move on from ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’, there is not much movement yet toward ‘nothing is agreed until enough is agreed’. For those who don’t yet have a firm grasp on what ‘enough’ is, have no fear. ECO is here to show the way.
‘Enough’ is a set of outcomes that doesn’t just harvest the low hanging fruit but also cracks some serious political nuts and builds essential trust, so that next year negotiations don’t go around in the same circles as this year . . . and the year before that, and . . .
‘Enough’ clarifies the road ahead: what it is that Parties are negotiating towards (a Fair, Ambitious and legally Binding agreement), by when (COP 17 in South Africa) and through which milestones.
So here are some highlights from the Cancun Building Blocks which will be unveiled by the Climate Action Network at its side event today:
• Agree a shared vision that keeps below 1.5o C warming, links it to the short and long term actions of Parties, and outlines key principles for global cooperation.
• Establish a new climate fund along with a governance structure that is transparent, regionally balanced and ensures the COP decides policies, programme priorities and eligibility criteria. Agree on a process to secure sufficient scale and sources of finance.
• Establish an adaptation framework along with its institutions, goals and principles and a mandate to agree a mechanism on loss and damage.
• Put in place a technology executive committee and provide a mandate to agree measurable objectives and plans.
• Agree to stop deforestation and degradation of natural forests and related emissions completely by 2020, and ensure sufficient finance to meet this goal.
• Implement the roll-out of a capacity building program.
• Acknowledge the gigatonne gap between current pledges and science-based targets, and ensure the gap will be closed in the process going forward.
• Agree a mandate to negotiate by COP17 individual emission reduction commitments for industrialised countries that match an aggregate reduction target of more than 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.
• Agree that each developed country will produce a Zero Carbon Action Plan by 2012.
• Minimise loopholes by adopting LULUCF rules that deliver emission reductions from the forestry and land use sectors; market mechanism rules that prevent double counting of emission reductions or finance; and banking rules that minimise damage from ‘hot air’ (surplus AAUs).
• Agree on producing climate-resilient Low Carbon Action Plans for developing countries, and establish a mechanism to match NAMAs with support. Mandate SBI and SBSTA to develop MRV guidelines for adoption in COP17.
• Commission at COP 16 a technical paper to explore the mitigation required to keep warming below 1.5° C, and outline a process to negotiate how that effort will be shared between countries.
• Agree a clear mandate that ensures that we get a full fair, ambitious and binding (FAB) deal at COP 17 in South Africa – one that includes the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. It is this clear pathway forward, with an agreed destination and an agreed route, that will make agreement at Cancun possible.
Meaningful progress in each area, agreement to work toward a legally binding deal, work plans agreed on each key area, and a long term vision for future negotiations, will deliver a successful and balanced package.
Submitted by Anonymous on
ECO is in shock! Are we really witnessing a race to the top for the transparency of fast start finance?
After months of pestering developed countries about fast-start disclosure, the United States – a country not known for its climate leadership – says it will disclose so much information that the Dutch fast start finance website will put up ‘under construction’ signs.
Todd Stern stated at the finance meeting in Geneva that the US would undertake a ‘very detailed document’, much to the shock (and possibly horror) of its Umbrella Group colleagues.
ECO understands the US will proudly announce that much of its fast-start finance is ‘new and additional’. That’s easy to do when your previous climate finance contributions are close to zero. On the other hand, this doesn’t help the comparison of additionality of different rich country contributions. Only a fair common baseline across all contributing countries will allow that. What’s actually additional gets even more complicated because the US seems ready to double-count funds for its G8 Food Security commitment towards its fast start package.
If the EU wants to call itself a climate finance leader, a common baseline to measure ‘new and additional’ is a real test of its conviction, and would pressure other rich countries to follow suit. That’s the race to the top these talks actually need. ECO would like to remind parties that disclosure and transparency is the first step towards creating accountability and confidence.
Whilst the EU worries about being put in the shade by the US report, they have an opportunity to reclaim their leadership on climate finance by agreeing internally a fair and common baseline for additionality and proposing it for adoption by all parties in Cancun. ECO understands the EU has considered a common baseline proposal to be included in the EU Fast Start Finance report which could nudge the US to the same starting position. We’ll know when that report is finalised by mid-November.
Finally, developed countries have no leg to stand on regarding MRV of actions if they cannot be transparent in their support. We will know more in Cancun about US and EU commitment to transparency of both sources and uses of their fast start
finance, and that will be the time to check in on whether the Brollies have taken heed as well. So stay tuned to your fast start finance channel right here in ECO!
Submitted by Anonymous on
In narrowing the negotiating text here in Tianjin, delegates should focus on a shared vision of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5° C and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide of no more than 350 ppm.
Anything above these levels would result in a host of severe impacts, including the inundation of low-lying island nations, the complete loss of coral reefs and summer Arctic sea ice, as well as the potential triggering of irreversible feedbacks adding massively to climate disruption.
For this reason, more than 110 countries support reducing carbon dioxide to 350 ppm. A shared vision that accomplishes anything less would surely consign future generations to ecological and economic
catastrophe.
As indicated by several scientific assessments, emission reduction pledges made at Copenhagen fall far short of the action needed to limit temperature rise to 2° C, much less to 1.5° C/350 ppm. Even viewed in the most optimistic light, the Copenhagen Accord would increase global temperatures by more than 3° C and push carbon dioxide levels past 650 ppm, a recipe for disaster.
To provide a 50/50 chance of limiting warming to an average of 2º C above pre-industrial levels, emissions by 2020 should be no more than 44 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2e globally. For the safer 1.5º C/350 ppm target, global emissions would need to be no greater than 40 Gt.
The Copenhagen Accord pledges, on the other hand, would end up at 48 to 55 Gt in 2020, so there is your ‘gigatonne gap’. And it’s not a pretty sight. Parties must formally acknowledge this gap in Cancun and adopt a firm process to close it. The laws of physics and chemistry will not bend to fit political convenience.
There are many potential measures to close the gigatonne gap, including increased emission reduction commitments by developed countries, dealing with excessive use of AAUs, capping emissions from bunkers, closing loopholes in greenhouse gas accounting, and additional financing to facilitate greater emissions reductions from
developing countries.
Because there is a shrinking window of time to address the climate crisis, expressly acknowledging the need to close the gigatonne gap is critical, and bold action will be needed to meaningfully address the climate crisis. There is no more time to lose.