It seems incredible. In the age of super-advanced information technology, where communications of all kinds fly around the world and across borders in an instant, the countries in the UN Asian regional group felt that the only way they could agree their nominees to the Transitional Committee (TC) to design the Global Climate Fund was by meeting face-to-face. In a few short weeks, citizens across North Africa and the Middle East have reshaped their governments and opened up new political horizons. The Asian group has yet to manage to select 7 members to sit on a committee. It wouldn’t matter if there wasn’t so much at stake. The work of the TC is vital to make a fair and transformational climate fund operational as soon as possible. Starting that work has now been delayed by more than a month, meaning that parties missed the deadline set in the Cancun agreement.

By way of comparability the Africa Group, with more than 50 countries, not only managed to complete their delegate selection on time, but also got agreement on proposing an important new agenda item on finance, that can help ensure there is money to go into the fund as soon as it is operational.

Let’s hope the Asian Group – and the GRULAC Group, which is also holding things up – have at least used the extra time to think through the kind of experts they will nominate. The TC badly needs experts in areas that matter to poor people’s lives and livelihoods, in areas like gender, agriculture and low carbon climate resilient development.

As of now, one can count the number of women currently nominated to the TC on one hand, or rather on two fingers. That may be a 100% increase on the number of women on the UNSG’s Advisory Group on Climate Finance, but it is still a token number. Women are the worst impacted by climate change. They must be at the heart of this new fund, not excluded from its core decision making structures.

The Asian and GRULAC groups can still get the job done, and do it right.

CAN_lobby_document_for_Bangkok.pdf

Path to Durban:  Objectives for the Bangkok Intersessional and 2011

Cancun was a modest success as it buried the ghost of the failure of Copenhagen. However, the Cancun Agreements postponed important issues that underpin the success, or otherwise, of efforts to fight catastrophic climate change.  
The Cancun Agreements provide real opportunities to advance global cooperation in adaptation, forests, climate finance and technology transfer.  If all opportunities outlined within the Cancun Agreements are grasped, and parties take the following thoughtful and logical next steps, it is within the realms of possibility that the Cancun Agreements could be a springboard to a fair, ambitious and binding global deal to tackle dangerous climate change.
Close the gigatonne gap.
•    Agree more ambitious A1 mitigation targets at Durban. Developed countries should commit to targets of more than 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.  The Cancun Agreements acknowledge the need to increase ambition and the 25-40% range of emission reductions for developed countries.    
•    Minimise loopholes to ensure developed countries honestly meet their emissions reduction targets including:
o    Land use, land use change and forestry rules that increase accountability and strengthen the level of ambition of developed countries such that forestry and land use sectors deliver emissions reductions.
o    Rules for any new market and non market mechanisms must not diminish already low levels of ambition and must disallow double counting, ensuring additional emissions reductions and funding flows.
o    Rules to minimise damage from hot air (surplus AAUs) for example setting a discount factor or adjusting aggregate emission reduction targets for all developed countries to compensate for the hot air.
•    At Durban agree the rules for a registry that links developing country mitigation action with necessary support, and provides a record of developing country mitigation actions without support.
•    At Durban establish robust reference levels for REDD+, and lock in $15 – 25 billion per year of guaranteed finance to deliver the substantial reductions required.
•    Governments should agree to quickly and strongly reduce the use of HFCs, in a close collaboration between the UNFCCC and the Montreal Protocol, in order to immediately reduce emissions of these "super greenhouse gasses".
•    Bangkok should put in place a process to agree a peak year and a long term global goal, with an equitable approach to sharing this effort, by Durban.  Emissions must peak in 2015 and reduce by at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050...

To view the full document, view above pdf.
 

Before today’s presentations of the pledges get underway, ECO decided to offer some of its own “clarifications” about the EU mitigation pledge. And it’s mostly good news.
 The emissions cuts made by the EU in 2009 were already 17.3 % below 1990 levels, so the 20% target by 2020 is almost already met. ECO isn’t the first to point out that less effort is required of the EU than some may think.  The European Commission’s 2050 Low Carbon Roadmap published in March 2011, notes that implementing the EU’s existing renewable energy and energy efficiency targets would lead to 25 % domestic emissions cuts in the EU. So there’s really no excuse for the EU not to commit to do more – moving to at least the 30% target they have long promised, and beyond to the 40% target that science demands. And there are many reasons why they should.
First, the Commission’s 2050 Roadmap showed how hitting only the 20% target by 2020 would put the EU off-course to achieve the 2050 target of 80-95% that they know is needed. Failing to try a bit harder now will mean much more work in the long-run.
Second, moving to 30% would bring the EU Emissions Trading Scheme back to life. ECO has long complained of the problems of over-allocation of emissions allowances in the period 2008-12, which does nothing but offer staggering windfall profits to the dirtiest industries in Europe.
Decreasing the number of allowances by increasing the target would turn a policy by which the polluter gets paid, into one that incentivizes clean, green fighting industries of the future in Europe. The business voices that want to realize that vision in Europe have had enough of the uncertainty of a conditional target. Planning big investments requires predictability. Europe needs both.
Third, those investments will bring new jobs to Europe. The European Commission shows how “action geared towards reaching the climate and energy targets of the Europe 2020 strategy has some of the greatest potential for future jobs.” Many will fall in the construction industry – a sector particularly hard hit in the European economic downturn.
ECO hopes this helps to provide all the clarity the EU needs to finally move to its higher target. A report commissioned for the German Environment Ministry sums it up nicely. A 30% target would help boost European investments from 18% to 22% of GDP, lead to a GDP increase of up to €620bn, create up to 6 million additional jobs, and help European industry to maintain and enhance its competitiveness. Europe, ECO thinks the case for 30% is clear as day.