Tag: Australia

ECO is sure that negotiators noticed the irony when Australia noted that 104 developing countries have yet to submit NAMAs. If that was a plea for increasing ambition, then ECO couldn’t agree more. But, did it have to come from a country that is committed to a pathetic unconditional target that is nowhere near a pathway consistent with 1.5/2°C? ECO believes there is hope. Australia has also suggested for the gap to be recognized and ambition to be increased.

It remains to be seen if Australia applies this to its own pledge when it comes to finding out who will do what to close the 5-12 gigatonne gap. While that discussion will come soon enough, there are more areas where Australia and other developed countries can focus on for now. In Saturday’s informal group, the co-facilitator smartly suggested that discussions should focus on ideas for a work programme. Alas, the aim of such a work programme is quite easy to define, as the gigatonne gap that results from the lack of ambition to at least avoid the worst impacts of climate change is clearly visible.    

ECO had previously suggested that the first logical step would be to get clarity on developed countries’ net domestic emissions in 2020 resulting from current pledges – this would clarify what Annex I commitments really mean. ECO has noted that, on a related matter, the United States does not want to even discuss common accounting rules, and ECO speculates how that ties up with its continued attempts to dress-up its low pledge as comparable to the EU’s.

The next area to be covered in the work programme would be to once-and-for-all close off the loopholes, such as bogus LULUCF projections, or rules to keep hot air into the system. Thirdly, ECO would like to encourage (as often as needed) developed countries with conditional (upper end) pledges to clarify (i) what part of the conditions has been met so far; and (ii) what is needed to fulfill the remaining conditions. ECO believes everyone would find these talks much easier if such clarification would be made in a way that allows an objective assessment of these conditions, so that countries can indeed move to the upper end of their pledges. Finally climate-friendly readers will agree that a work programme that’s worth the work would result in (i) recognizing the size of the gap; and (ii) agreeing a process to close it.

While walking past the copy machine in the Maritim, ECO spotted a teacher's note intended for the 'Brollies' (Australian slang for the small tent-like device called an 'umbrella' designed to shield oneself from rain and other realities).  It read as follows: Dear Brollies . . . You're good at the 3 R's (reading, [w]riting and [a]rithmetic), although you could improve on your maths.  But your marks are not adequate at all on avoiding dangerous climate change.  So this term, it's time to focus on the 3 C's – a Common Position leading to Common Rules and Strong Compliance. You have often lamented in class that any consolidation of commitments cannot be based on a 1992 world.  Well, Brollies, it cuts both ways.  The regime cannot afford to be based on a pre-1997 version of industrialized country commitments, yet your Umbrella Group submission in the LCA contact group on the MRV of Non-Annex I mitigation actions seems to suggest just that. Developed countries undertake commitments and they must be complied with.  That is what leadership looks like.  Merely reviewing progress toward a target isn't sufficient.  Perhaps you should review the study plan for this term: Transparency in the developed country context isn't just about building trust amongst Parties, but also to detect when they aren't fulfilling their commitments.  It is clear that the current regime lacks a robust early warning system for non-compliance (Canada, please stop hiding behind the umbrella). A policy review process could assist in enhancing the regime, but it can't be the end of the story.  Strong compliance with legally binding commitments is crucial to building a regime for avoiding dangerous climate change. The question must be put: What happens if expert reviewers detect a problem?  (And the answer can't be 'nothing'!) To assess compliance, common accounting and reporting standards are needed.  This applies just as much to calculating emissions reductions as it does to the support provided by industrialized countries.  It's encouraging that you Brollies can come to a common position, so it shouldn't be a big step to agree common rules.  There is plenty of material to draw from and improve upon (for example, look in your Kyoto lesson plan)! If you are questioning the need for common accounting and reporting rules, please refer to the fast start financing reports published by the US (at the April MEF session) and the EU (both at and before this session).  While the depth and quality of reports are welcome, other Brollies must follow suit and report on the state of your fast-start financing.  This includes defining the terms and revising the relevant National Communication guidelines for reporting on financial, technological and capacity building support. Remember, progress on MRV rules will be key to ensuring a successful outcome in Cancun.  However, this means detailed progress on all fronts: Annex I emission reduction commitments, Non-Annex I nationally appropriate mitigation actions and support for them provided by you and the non-Brollie Annex I countries. You're making some progress, but to pass this term, remember that your grade depends on all 3 Cs:  a Common Position leading to Common Rules and Strong Compliance.  The final exam is in Cancun, so don't fall behind in your work going forward! /signed/ Professor M.R.V.