Tag: MRV

No Finance Chicken, No Mitigation and Adaptation Egg


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!

Related Newsletter : 

CAN Submission: For ADP Chairs on Workstream 1: Post-2020 Ambition, March 2013

(a) Application of Principles of Convention

Equity, including a dynamic approach to common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDRRC), must be at the very heart of the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action Workstream 1 if it is to be able to deliver adequately for the climate. The internationally legally binding protocol now under negotiation must include common and accurate accounting, MRV, strong compliance and enforcement, all respecting the principles of equity, including CBDRRC. It must have fair targets and actions that are consistent with the strong likelihood of meeting a 2°C global carbon budget, and thus keeping 1.5°C budget within reach. It should build on, develop and improve the rules already agreed under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol.
The failure to consider equity principles for a global effort sharing agreement – an equitable approach to sharing the costs of mitigation and adaptation amongst countries – has been a stumbling block to agreeing sufficient ambition. Adaptation must be treated with the same importance as mitigation. Countries are concerned that they will be asked to do more than is their fair share, and conversely that other countries will ‘free ride’ off their efforts. A common understanding of fair shares can help overcome this trust barrier and lead to higher levels of ambition from all. Countries must urgently start their work to increase understanding of, and further agreement on, ways and options for the allocation of fair shares of the global effort.

No oasis for climate in Doha desert


The UN climate talks failed to deliver increased cuts to carbon pollution, nor did they provide any credible pathway to $100 billion per year in finance by 2020 to help the poorest countries deal with climate change, according to the 700 NGOs who are members of Climate Action Network-International (CAN-I).

Two weeks ago, just prior to the start of these negotiations, numerous credible reports were published by an array of well respected scientists, economists and climate change experts, all with essentially the same conclusion - we are currently on an unsustainable path which virtually guarantees the world will be faced with catastrophic effects from climate change, according to Greenpeace International executive director, Kumi Naidoo.

“Two weeks of negotiations have not altered that path and that politicians need to reflect the consensus around climate change through funds, targets and effective action."

WWF head of delegation, Tasneem Essop, said Doha was supposed to be an important element in setting up for a fair, ambitious and binding deal in 2015 and therefore needed to rebuild trust and instill equity.

“These talks have failed the climate and they have failed developing nations,” Essop said. “The Doha decision has delivered no real cuts in emissions, it has delivered no concrete finance, and it has not delivered on equity.”

Governments have delivered a very vague outcome that might lead to increased ambition but only if the politics shift to working for the people, our future, and not the polluters.

In particular, countries including the US, who have continually blocked progress in the talks, need to fundamentally change their positions in line with their obligation to lead on the solution to this crisis that they created.

Tim Gore, International Climate Change Policy Advisor for Oxfam, said Doha had done nothing to guarantee that public climate finance would go up next year, not down.

“Developing countrieshave come here in good faith and have been forced to accept vague words and no numbers,” Gore said. “It's a betrayal.”

Wael Hmaidan, director of CAN-I, said that ministers needed to go back to their capitals and work hard to put concrete proposals on the table for the next talks so that progress could be made towards to secure a fair, ambitious, and binding deal in 2015.

“The path forward is actually quite clear: we have the technology and know-how to reduce dangerous carbon pollution, protect vulnerable communities, and grow sustainable, resilient, economies.”

“But we also need people in all regions of the world to demand leadership from their governments on climate change – just like the new youth movement in the Arab region has done.”

The Doha Decision:

  • An extraordinarily weak outcome on climate finance which fails to put any money on the table or to ensure a pathway to the $100 billion a year by 2020 target. The decision asks for submissions from governments on long term finance pathways, calls for public funds for adaptation but does not mention a figure, and encourages developed countries to maintain funding at existing levels dependent on their economies.  
  • An eight year second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol with loopholes that allow carry over, use and trading of hot air
  • A call – though not an official ambition ratchet mechanism - for Kyoto Protocol countries to review their emissions reduction target inline with the 25-40% range by 2014 at the latest. While it could have been stronger, the decision reinforces clear moral obligation for countries to increase their emission reduction targets prior to 2020 and provides opportunities for them to do so
  • An agreed work program on loss and damage to help victims of climate change will start immediately anda decision “to establish institutional arrangement, such as an international mechanism, at COP19”
  • Developed countries failed to agree a way to account for their carbon in a comparable way

Climate Action Network (CAN) is a global network of over 700 NGOs working to promote government and individual action to limit human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels.
For more information, please contact CAN International Communications Coordinator Ria Voorhaar, email: rvoorhaar@climatenetwork.org, local mobile: +974 33 38 6907.


Closing the Loose Ends for Adaptation

As COP 18 welcomes Ministers from around the world, ECO would like to focus their attention on significant matters related to adaptation. May we have your attention, Ministers: adaptation needs are closing in fast!

National Adaptation Plans. These are intended to address medium and long term adaptation needs.
Let’s keep this short and sweet:
First, guidance to the Global Environment Facility is needed now. LDCs are committed, the technical guidelines are out, and there is clear willingness among other developing country Parties. So really, there’s no excuse for delays. 
Second, use those funding bodies. The LDCF and SCCF are ready, willing and able to be capitalized.  There’s no denying that more funding is needed and this must be additional to that of NAPAs. Otherwise, all the good and benevolent intentions of NAPs are completely without effect.
Loss and Damage.  
Political opportunity cannot be lost here:
As negotiators are running out of steam from all their work on the L&D text, ECO will pitch in to make sure that this reaches success.
These points should steer you in the right direction:
• Loss and damage needs to be given the political space that it deserves; negotiators must keep the political will to keep loss and damage high on the agenda.
• The work programme on loss and damage must be approved and continued, with assurance that discussions on an international mechanism will be a focal point.
• The text cannot shy away from rehabilitation and compensation – these are key to the loss and damage debate and so outcomes should provide guidance on how to address these aspects further.
Ministers need to admit that loss and damage is the unfortunate consequence of the failure to mitigate and the limited international support for adaptation. Now, instead of dwelling on the cause, we must act on the solutions and not let this text fall through the cracks.
Some parting words to Ministers on adaptation in the ADP and LCA:
ADP: Don’t forget the Cancun Adaptation Framework! ECO wants you to make sure that it’s regularly reviewed in the ADP in light of mitigation ambition and the needs of -- and support to -- developing countries.
LCA: Finance is key – this goes without saying. Instead of re-emphasizing the importance of finance for adaptation, ECO expects Ministers to guarantee its delivery without any further delay. There’s ample evidence to prove the existence of sufficient funds so make the commitment!
And so the strenuous effort to address loss and damage has a well defined path to success. Let us not fail to achieve it!
Related Newsletter : 

LCA Gaps: From Text to Tonnes

In Durban, Parties agreed to conclude the LCA here in Doha.  A successful closure necessitates that the critical issues are resolved or find homes in which further work can be done. In the LCA text tabled Monday, there were some gaping gaps, from text to tonnes.   

ECO was shocked that text on 2013-2015 financial support turned up missing. There needs to be at least a doubling of fast-start financing, and a mandate for a political process to scale up financing to reach the 2020 $100 billion per annum target.  Adding insult to injury these two issues are also missing from the financing text advancing under the COP. No wonder there are strong calls for the MRV of finance if this is the state of play! 
The 2-year Doha Capacity Action Plan and decisions on enabling environments including IPR and on the interlinkages between the different bodies under the Convention, including the CTCN and TEC, also seem to be missing in the the text.
Where there is text, ECO is concerned that it lacks ambition and environmental integrity.  The work programmes under the SBs for clarifying commitments and actions inspire little confidence that such processes will lead to the increase in mitigation ambition so sorely needed up to 2020 and beyond.  
Moreover, ECO is getting tired of seeing the same “rigorous, robust and transparent” text on common accounting.  Instead, it is high time Parties actually agree some rules to give those words substantive meaning.  A clear deadline to agree common accounting rules would help build confidence.  
In addition, there are even some issues like base year and GWPs that can be agreed in Doha.  Finally, only italics on the global goal and peak year – really?  ECO wonders whether the climate is responsive to typographic emphasis rather than actual commitments.
The core questions, of supreme relevance to theADP, are also unresolved – namely, equitable access to sustainable development and the review of the long-term temperature goal.  Here a one year process for equity and a narrowly defined review of the long-term temperature goal under a robust body would go a long way in ensuring the ADP is well informed.   
So how did we get here?  Well . . . we all know that the U.S. is not willing to negotiate certain issues.Other ship-jumpers, like Canada, Russia, Japan and New Zealand, aren’t helping things progress either, despite noise and sound bites in the capitals.  
So please pay attention: successful closure of the LCA is vital in order to allow the ADP to get on with its own work to raise ambition in the near-term and to conclude a new, comprehensive global deal no later than 2015.
Therefore ECO asks Parties to engage with the text in constructive manner and work towards a successful outcome and closure of the LCA.  Come on negotiators and ministers . . . we know you can do it!
Related Newsletter : 

MRV of Finance: What Could Be So Hard About That?

ECO understands that progress on transparent reporting of climate finance is grinding to a halt. SBSTA was meant to adopt common tabular formats for reporting by developed countries of both emissions and climate finance. Now the process appears to be deadlocked with no immediate solutions in sight.

Apparently, developed countries are opposing a key proposal made by developing countries on transparent reporting – a common tabular format on climate change. Essentially, this is a method to provide listings of individual, bilaterally financed actions, rather than just aggregate figures per recipient country or per sector. 

The idea to list every single financed action with information on title, recipient country, committed amount, climate component of amount, sector, mitigation/adaptation, grants / / loans (also stating grant equivalent) and so forth seems pretty reasonable to ECO. Transparency of one's own actions is a key ingredient to a 'circle of confidence' and a precondition for the ‘V’ in MRV. Developed countries could use such lists to demonstrate transparency, as well as tracking where and how their climate finance is flowing. 

However, developed countries continue to argue that submitting project listings is too cumbersome. ECO would like toremind everyone that developed countries are already compiling such lists – forexample, the OECD DAC reporting system currently used to report aid flows. So the idea of such listings is neither new nor prohibitively cumbersome.

If developed countries continue to resist providing listings of financed actions as part of their MRV exercise, ECO is always eager to serve.  For example, ECO could use the ‘freedom of information’ laws that exist in many countries to locate theinformation and submit it to the UNFCCC, as a courtesy to transparency and the ‘V’ in MRV.

Related Newsletter : 

REDD+ at Bali+5

Five years after Parties endorsed the Bali Roadmap, we are far down the road on several REDD+ issues, but all over the map on others. 

It’s now time for SBSTA to complete recommendations on Monitoring and MRV and to move forward on safeguards, reference levels and drivers of deforestation. 
Though tracking emissions, removals and changes in carbon stocks are necessary, counting carbon tonnes alone is not sufficient for successful Monitoring and MRV.  
To ensure REDD delivers benefits for the climate, forests and peoples, Monitoring and MRV must contribute to the sustainability and permanence of pollution reductions. To contribute to this, Parties should build further consensus on the technical review of reference levels, on comparability and consistency of units of measurement in pilot testing and implementation, and on information systems for safeguards.
SBSTA’s decisions must also be applied consistently throughout REDD+ readiness activities, pilot programs and implementation with results-based incentives.  Further, REDD+ policies will not significantly reduce deforestation and forest degradation unless they also minimize the internationally-driven, demand-side drivers on the world’s forests.
Compared to other mitigation strategies with long lead times, REDD+ activities make unique contributions to enhanced mitigation action, as well as deliver non-carbon benefits, before 2020 and after 2020. The reverse is also true, once forests are lost, the opportunity for REDD+ is gone forever.
Pessimists are saying that REDD+ is dead. SBSTA37 and COP18 can prove them wrong.


Subscribe to Tag: MRV