Tag: Finance

2014. A year full of challenges, big time!

Submitted by MBrockley on June 28, 2013 - 6:04pm

Enrique Maurtua Konstantinidis
Fundación Biosfera, CANLA

In Bonn GRULAC endorsed Peru’s nomination as COP host for 2014. In the last day of negotiations, Peru’s Minister of Environment himself notified Parties about Peru being the COP 20 presidency. This is great news for Latin America; and the COP will certainly bring a lot of focus on the issues that concern the region.

But 2014 is not just another year, COP 20 will not be a transitional COP, neither something to diminish. Many international climate events will mobilize media attention, people, citizens and politicians to ramp up ambition in the year (2014) countries should present targets on both mitigation and finance. Besides the regular intersessional and ADP sessions, UN General Secretary, Ban Ki Moon, called world leaders to meet for highlighting the urgency of decisions in this matter (in 2014). Venezuela on the other hand proposed to host the traditional ministerial Pre-COP, but they have decided to do things differently and to invite all Civil Society to participate in a non-traditional manner. The list of important events in 2014 concludes with the FIFA World Cup in Brazil ,which will have all attention from all around the world, especially the attention of Brazilians.

With all this happening around Peru as the COP Presidency and with so many milestones to be achieved, there is a very interesting challenge ahead. Finance pledges have to be on the table, and mitigation pledges have to be clear. Also a legal architecture of the new legal instrument should be approved in Lima, Peru by th end of 2014; this is key.

Peru has a good potential as a facilitator, and many coutries are expressing their support, we will have to see how Peru manages the pressure and how constructively countries work to let Peru conduct successful meetings in a year full of expectations.

Tags:

Topics:

Region:

Related Campaign:

Leadership Development Program

Related Member Organization:

Fundación Biosfera

Stop Your Finger Pointing

Submitted by MBrockley on June 14, 2013 - 1:35am

Delegates: whilst you sat around the Maritim fountain enjoying the balmy weather, Germany suffered historic flooding. It’s a pity the flooding was the physical variety, and not a flood of ambition washing over these negotiations.

The SBI drowning in Russian bile was the disappointing low point of the last fortnight. Really? In two weeks you can’t agree on an agenda?! And you wonder why the public thinks you might be wasting their precious tax dollars. Perhaps Russia might like to pick up the bill for these last weeks, not to mention the bill for the extra climate impacts caused by this stalling.

While we’re on the subject of bills, let’s reflect on how much lower the climate damage bill will be if you raise your ambition (you might recall this is the objective of Workstream 2 – where we’ve yet to see an over abundance of concrete outcomes). The science is clear: the less you mitigate, the more you will pay to adapt – and to deal with ever more frequent climate related disasters.

But, happily, Warsaw offers you the opportunity to address this dearth of ambition, thus plugging a hole in the leaky climate boat.

ECO recommends two Ministerials at Warsaw. First - the Ambition Ministerial. Let your Ministers know that we are actually expecting them to work hard to close the yawning ambition gap whilst at Warsaw, not just tour the many mermaid statues. Workstream 2 needs to see concrete decisions on ways to accelerate deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, as well as a clearly marked out timeframe for increasing developed country targets, and enhancing developing country action in 2014.

ECO was VERY pleased to hear of the Polish Government’s plans to engage Finance Ministers at Warsaw and the enthusiastic welcoming of this by many countries. Engaging Finance Ministers early and often will be important. We would encourage Finance Ministers to come to Warsaw ready to put $$$ on the table. A roadmap to scale finance ambition up to the US$100bn by 2020 will be an essential outcome at Warsaw.

The other essential roadmap to agree at Warsaw is a decision laying out the structure and timeline for further negotiations on the 2015 agreement. Yes, you made some progress here in the roundtable format. But as you agree yourselves, we need a more concrete and less watery path – starting in Warsaw. You might want to focus on this, amongst other things, in your September submissions.

To achieve the comprehensive, global plan we all need in 2015, let's seriously start down the path to agreeing to negotiating text by the end of 2014.

Between now and Warsaw we’ll have our first cool refreshing drink of impending doom from IPCC working group 1. Could the AR5 report on the physical science (spoiler: we're all in deep trouble as things currently stand) finally give you the momentum to agree at Warsaw a process to develop an Equity Reference Framework and to develop and put forward your country specific commitments during 2014 (allowing sufficient time to assess them against science and agreed equity indicators)?

We can’t afford to repeat the mistakes of Copenhagen, which we approached without any shared understanding of what was a fair share of effort and how we would capture it.

We also need progress in Warsaw on development of common accounting standards for both mitigation and finance.

So for now, sit back, relax, enjoy that final Weizenbier before you head home, content in the knowledge that you will be busy, very busy – filing submissions and getting ready to “move to a more focused mode of work at Warsaw” – which needs to not be a "transition COP" but a real step forward on both short term and long term solutions for the climate problem.

Tags:

Topics:

MBrockley's blog

Climate Finance: Deal Maker or Deal Breaker?

Submitted by MBrockley on June 14, 2013 - 1:20am

Sitting in Monday’s briefing for observer organisations, ECO was delighted to hear the incoming President identify progress on climate finance as a “clear priority” for COP19.

We couldn’t agree more! With the Fast Start period behind us and only a handful of countries with new money on the table, we’re in need of some giant strides between now and the end of Warsaw.

At a minimum, all developed countries must set out, in a way that ensures comparability, the climate finance they will provide over the period 2013-2015, that is comparable and commit to a roadmap for scaling up public finance and reaching US$100bn per year by 2020. The Green Climate Fund must not be left an empty shell – for a fourth COP in a row. And if we’re to confront the enduring “adaptation gap”, Parties should agree that at least 50% of all public climate finance between now and 2020 will be spent on adaptation.

So Poland, now is the time for a good hard think about what it will take to deliver this kind of progress by November. ECO’s advice: It’s time to bring in those who hold the purse strings. That’s right, we’re talking finance ministers. If you’re serious about some big decisions on finance, which ECO believes you are, then we need to involve Finance Ministries and Treasuries in the conversation as soon as possible. That means bringing them into the process before or early in COP19, not just having them swoop in at the end and try to cut last minute deals.

Then there’s the “in-session high-level ministerial dialogue” to prepare for. This is one opportunity we cannot afford to let slip. ECO is looking forward to seeing Finance Ministers sitting down to work out their new commitments and make decisions on promising new sources of public finance. If you put out the invitation, we’ll be sure to do our part in encouraging them to come along.

And when it comes to pathways for scaling up, ECO suggests you have a word with those lovely chaps chairing the Long Term Finance Work Programme. It’s time to gather these almost two years of deliberations into some clear decision options for Ministers, including on new and innovative sources of public finance.

Parties have been emphatic these last two weeks about the need for an ambitious deal that is guided by science as well as equity and capable of keeping warming to within 1.5-2^oC. But developing countries simply cannot unlock their mitigation potential unless there is the necessary financial support. Furthermore, vulnerable countries must be given confidence that their escalating adaptation needs will be met.

Finance will be the glue that holds the 2015 deal together. Real progress on this front will be a major step towards an ambitious outcome.

Tags:

Topics:

MBrockley's blog

Poles Apart

Submitted by MBrockley on June 13, 2013 - 2:01am

Poland is an extraordinary country. It has overcome many years of oppression and poverty to transform itself into a significant economic powerhouse and a proactive European player on diplomacy.

But it appears the Polish government is willing to risk their status as rising international star, and allow its politics to be captured by high carbon incumbents.

If the Polish government continues to pursue this position, it is quite likely that the EU will lose patience, and a diplomatic backlash is quite possible. This will result in Poland losing its say to shape the future of Europe’s energy regime, widening the gap between its ageing and inefficient energy infrastructure and a more dynamic, smarter and innovative power system across other EU countries.

ECO wonders if the Polish government is kicking itself in deciding to put their names forward for the Presidency of COP19 later on this year. Warsaw will not be a Poznan. Back in 2008, the Poles were still only agitators as opposed to today’s outright blockers of the EU’s energy and climate ambitions. Poznan was a low-key COP, unlike Warsaw, which should agree on the outlines of an Equity Reference Framework for the post-2020 deal; outline further efforts on public finance (with the engagement of Finance Ministers); close the pre-2020 mitigation gap; affirm the political significance of the Loss and Damage debate and set in place a series of processes to deliver a 2015 agreement.

Warsaw will be a high profile event. But Poland’s diplomatic strategy is flawed – they are invisible, and there is an emerging disquiet amongst many Parties and observers if they were the right choice. Among those are established voices such as Raul Estrada-Oyuela, a legend to those of us in the climate and diplomatic arena, who unforgettably locked delegates in the room in Kyoto to hammer out the subsequent protocol, who calls Poland’s ability to host such an important event into question, based on the Polish SBI chair’s failure to resolve this issue. (Link to Estrada’s letter here http://bit.ly/estrada-oyuela)

What is needed from the Polish government is not just to be a rising star, but a sophisticated diplomatic actor that understands how to build consensus around ambitious action climate change. An actor who has a more mature and deeper understanding of its national interest. An actor who understands that a reliance on coal undermines the long term prosperity of its own people, and recognises that modernising its economy is essential if it is to compete in a globalised world. Instead, what we have is a government that plans to build new coal fired power plants and open new lignite reserves, which recent studies state have the worst implications upon health within the EU, and that also displace 20,000 people. Such aggressive coal expansion, and its persistent objections to greater European ambition, cannot be reconciled with its desire to be an international player in the run up to 2015.

Tags:

SBI

Poland

Topics:

Adaptation

Equity/effort-sharing

Finance

Mitigation

Region:

Europe

MBrockley's blog

Ludwig & Ludwiga

Submitted by MBrockley on June 13, 2013 - 1:57am

Hello ECO readers. Just because the SBI won’t start this Bonn session (seriously Russia!!) it does not mean that ECO could conclude the fortnight without at least one piece of acerbic commentary from me, Ludwig (and my gender-balancing friend, Ludwiga). And do not be disappointed, we’ve got a good one for you!

In Tuesday’s ADP informal, a big country down-under came up with a great idea to deal with adaptation financing – “let’s just ignore the costs and focus on the opportunities!”

The text at that time had (and we hope still has) a request for the Secretariat to prepare a technical paper on the costs of adaptation at various temperature levels. It seems these mates had so much fun making up new colours for their temperature maps during the extended heat wave in their summer that now they want everyone to benefit from such “adaptation opportunities”!

Tags:

Topics:

MBrockley's blog

CAN Intervention in the SB38/ADP2-2 Bonn Intersessional: REDD+ Finance Workshop , 10 June, 2013

Submitted by Sam Harris on June 12, 2013 - 6:39am

CAN Intervention for COP Work Program Workshop

-Delivered by Josefina Brana-Varela

Thank you chairs. I’m speaking on behalf of the Climate Action Network.

We welcome the opportunity to be present in this workshop and we would like to share our views on how to approach the issue of result-based finance for REDD+.

While we understand that there are many discussions that are taking place in other bodies and groups under the UNFCCC with respect to the issue of finance, we believe that Parties here can start shaping a results-based mechanism for REDD+. Therefore, Parties can start focusing in:

1. Talking about the modalities and procedures for financing results-based actions for REDD+, despite the sources of funding

2. Parties should focus in establishing a mechanism that enables support for REDD+ countries that have met successfully the requirements established in the Cancun Agreements, including safeguards.

3. The design elements of such a mechanism should ensure environmental integrity, through the establishment of registries and reserves to avoid double counting and addressing risks of reversals.

4. Parties should discuss the relationship between reference levels and the access to payments.

5. Discussions here and towards Warsaw should promote equity by ensuring adequate incentives for countries with less capacity as well as countries with significant carbon stocks but lower deforestation rates, while ensuring the integrity of the climate system.

6. Finally, Parties should aim for transparency and efficiency, avoiding creating mechanisms with high transactions costs.

Chairs, are you planning to ask for submissions on these matters in preparation to the second workshop that the Work Program under the COP is considering? If so, we as observers will be happy to share our ideas.

Thank you.

Tags:

Topics:

No Finance Chicken, No Mitigation and Adaptation Egg

Submitted by MBrockley on June 12, 2013 - 1:27am

Dear Delegates,

ECO wants to share its famous recipe for a delicious and ambitious omelet. We hope it will inspire you in cooking your submissions about strategies and approaches. Bear in mind that it takes up to 82 days to cook. ECO is looking forward to the September 2nd Green Climate Fund Board meeting to enjoy it!

Step 1: Crack 60 billion eggs of public finance for 2013 to 2015. Please make sure your eggs are comparable in size and shape. All the eggs should come from free range, public chickens. At least half the eggs should have adaptation yolk.

This is important if you want your omelet to be fair and balanced and nutritious.

Step 2: Whisk in some new and additional cups of milk (Please use FTT-branded milk). Add organic and fair-trade bunker-grown onions.

Step 3: Spice up your omelet with 5 tablespoons of MRV and grated cheese to make it more savoury and transparent.

Step 4: Grab your whisk and whisk like crazy; you should work up a sweat at this point.

Step 5: Fry your omelet in a high-level Ministerial pan if you really mean to deliver a tasty and trustworthy omelet.

Serves 132 guests from developing nations.

NOTE: As your guests will want second and third servings by 2020, you might want to start a food blog so they know what’s on the menu until 2020.

Also, don’t forget to save some of the omelet for your friends in need, the Adaptation Fund and the GCF. For both, ECO suggests large servings as soon as 2013. Bon appétit!

Topics:

Adaptation

Finance

MRV

MBrockley's blog

A Road Paved in Questions

Submitted by MBrockley on June 12, 2013 - 1:23am

As the road to the 2015 agreement is beginning to be paved brick by brick, ECO wants to help Parties by giving them a direction in which this road should be built. Parties will be making submissions around how to further develop and operationalise the ADP work program. Here are a few questions that Parties should address in their submissions, which will help us to get closer to a fair, ambitious and binding deal.

Equity

How could the principles of the Convention be operationalised into objective criteria and indicators to guide countries in seeking to identify their fair and adequate contributions to the globally needed mitigation effort and adaptation support and provision of the means of implementation?

What could be the suitable timelines up to 2015 to a) identify objective ex-ante criteria to develop an agreed list of indicators for identifying each country’s fair efforts, b) for countries to submit initial mitigation and finance commitments and c) assess and revise commitments based on the ex-ante agreed list of indicators?

Mitigation

What should be the global carbon budget and subsequent long term emission pathways indicative of emission levels at 2025, 2030 and 2050?

What information should Parties include about their targets and commitments in order to allow individual and aggregate assessment against adequacy and equity, including their views about a timeline that allows for this assessment and revision of targets well before COP21?

How to raise the level of ambition for developed countries’ 2020 targets?

How to close the pre-2020 ambition gap through advancing concrete solutions?

Adaptation

How should Parties scale up public finance for adaptation and ensure at least USD 50bn international public finance annually?

How are Parties going to deal with inter-connectivity between lack of mitigation ambition and increased need for adaptation, along with addressing loss and damage?

Finance

How to assess overall financial needs, as well as the links between the scale of financial needs for adaptation, the scale of loss and damage likely to be incurred and the level of mitigation ambition?

How do Parties see progress on applying both “polluter pays” and the principle of CBDR to generate new streams of finance?

Technology

What issues related to technology support need to be addressed by the ADP and how can technology transfer best leverage increased ambition?

Topics:

Adaptation

Equity/effort-sharing

Finance

Mitigation

Technology

MBrockley's blog

ECO’S “COMPROMISE” DECISION FOR WARSAW*

Submitted by MBrockley on June 11, 2013 - 1:36am

*By compromise, ECO mean somewhere in between what is scientifically needed and what YOU tell us is currently feasible.

The Conference of the Parties,

Recalling Article 4, paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 5 and 7 of the Convention,

Reaffirming the unwavering commitment of parties to keep global average temperature increase well below 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels and the continuum approach between mitigation, adaptation, loss & damage and finance that is required to ensure equity before 2020.

Reaffirming the urgency to address the current imbalance in mitigation and adaptation finance – in light of recent studies showing the adaptation and loss and damage costs in developing countries will very likely be well in excess of US$100 billion per year by 2020.

Reaffirming the need to raise mitigation ambition levels between now and 2020, and achieving emission reductions on the order of 8-13 Gigatonnes of emissions in the pre-2020 period, beyond existing commitments and actions registered under the UNFCCC.

Supporting the authoritative assessments demonstrating that staying well below 2°C will require several hundred billion of incremental finance per year and the shifting of trillions of dollars of existing private sector investments into low carbon technologies and solutions.

Emphasising that the commitment by developing countries to provide $100 billion for developing countries will be delivered in the form of new and additional public finance, through budgetary allocations from developed countries, supplemented by revenues from alternative sources of public finance

Emphasising the shortcomings of the main revenue stream for the Adaptation Fund in relation to the expected low price of CERs under the Clean Development Mechanism and the need for new and additional commitments by developed countries.

*********
Decides:

1. That developed country Parties shall provide jointly new and additional public finance amounting to an average of US$20 billion annually for the period 2013-2015, for mitigation and adaptation actions, including for REDD, technology and capacity building.

2. That for the periods of 2016-2018 and 2018-2020, developed country parties shall scale up financing in a linear manner from the current levels to reach $100 billion annually in public finance by 2020.

3. That developed countries shall allocate at least 50% of overall public finance to meeting developing country adaptation needs.

4. To establish a formal process to capitalise the GCF with an initial collective pledge of (…)** by COP19.

5. To call on the relevant bodies to design and implement global measures to raise new streams of public climate finance, particularly through:

i) Redirection of at least 100% of Annex 2 fossil fuel subsidies

ii) Carbon pricing mechanisms applied to the international aviation and maritime transport - in accordance with the principal of CBDRRC and existing commitments under the UNFCCC.

********

Welcomes

1. The pledges to the Adaptation Fund of (…)** collectively made by Annex 2 Parties for 2013/2014, as contained in Annex C of this decision, and those made by other Parties.

2. The initial pledges to the Green Climate Fund of (…)** collectively made by Annex 2 Parties as contained in Annex D of this decision.

3. The recent declaration by 11 EU Finance Ministers to earmark at least 100% of the revenue raised through their Financial Transaction Tax to the Green Climate Fund.

Disclaimer

** "there is not enough space on this page to specify the number of billions ECO is expecting"

For official CAN positions, please refer to www.climatenetwork.org

Tags:

Topics: