Tag: Bali

What’s expected from the US

Submitted by Anonymous on October 5, 2011 - 10:08am

Earlier this week, ECO started exploring ideas for what two of the three main groups of countries – Kyoto Annex 1 countries and developing countries - need to decide to bring to the table to enable a successful Durban climate summit. These articles have of course been far from comprehensive, as there are other important issues where movement is also required from these Parties.

As ECO has repeatedly stated (is it sinking in yet?): all developed countries currently with QELROs under the KP should continue to have (more ambitious!!) QERCs under the KP for the post 2012 period, with accounting rules that close the loopholes and increase environmental integrity of the Protocol.

Developing countries need to show their commitment to adequate action by agreeing a mandate for a future legally binding agreement to help ensure the “full, effective and sustained implementation” of the Convention. This should come, in the form of a Protocol or other legal instrument, respecting the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.

Now let’s talk about the third “group” -- the United States, for whom the mandate is no real concession. It is essential that architecture is built under the Convention track that allows comparability of efforts of the US and other developed countries, so that there can be clarity on the overall (in)adequacy of these efforts through time. To mitigate against the chaos of a pledge and review (4C+) world, there also needs to be clear expectations for a more ambitious level of US effort on both mitigation and finance.

All countries agreed in Bali that the efforts of all developed countries should be comparable. To avoid comparing apples and oranges, tons and tonnes, or emission reductions and loopholes, this means that common accounting standards will be an essential part of the mix that these countries will need to agree to in Durban. Since the negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol have already laid the groundwork, there is no earthly reason why they should not be the basis for the common accounting regime for developed countries under the Convention track (for all that the US is kicking and screaming like a spoiled toddler at the very thought of it)..

There are other key MRV elements that are also needed to ensure the agreed-to comparability. The main guidelines for the rest of the International Assessment & Review system need to be agreed, as well as the guidelines, assumptions and metrics for the biennial reports, including for finance. In addition, all developed countries should put forward Low Carbon Development Strategies, as agreed in Cancun, and these should be integrated into the MRV framework.

For Durban to be a success, all Parties must come to the table prepared to build upon the existing architecture of the Convention and Protocol, by ensuring the continued viability of the Kyoto Protocol, agreeing that the Convention track will result in a comprehensive and ambitious legally-binding instrument, and not allowing the regime to fall into the carboniferous pit of every country doing only what it can be bothered to do, and reporting on it, if at all, as it sees fit.

Tags:

Topics:

Region:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

CAN intervention - REDD - COP 13,

Submitted by admin on June 28, 2010 - 9:53pm

Intervention given by Paula Moreira on behalf of CAN in Bali on REDD issues

Thank you for this opportunity, my name is Paula Moreira from IPAM Brazil, The Amazon Institute for Environmental Research

The Climate Action Network International believes that:

To avoid the worst impacts of human-induced climate change, average global surface temperature rise needs to be stabilized as far below 2C above pre-industrial levels as possible. Keeping climate change below these levels is critical to the protection of tropical forests.
Global emissions must peak and begin to decline in the coming decade and reducing emissions from deforestation has a key role to play in achieving this goal.
The question is no longer whether deforestation should be addressed as part of the evolving global climate change regime, but rather, how this can be done most effectively and rapidly, while:

Ensuring equitable and fair incentives to Indigenous and forest people and
Protecting their land rights and customary land.

CAN’s objective is to ensure that the development of policies and mechanisms will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation at the national level; fast enough to prevent dangerous climate change.
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation must:

enhance the environmental effectiveness and improve the integrity of the climate change regime;
be accompanied by deeper and additional cuts in fossil fuel emissions by developed countries after 2012.

Developed countries must provide substantial resources for capacity building and technology transfer for effective monitoring, measurement and implementation of national and conservation legislation.
It is therefore essential that the Bali Mandate includes ambition, content, process and a timetable for negotiating a mechanism that provides incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation.

Tags:

Topics:

Organization:

Climate Action Network

Kyoto

UNFCCC

Related Event:

COP 13 - Bali

CAN Intervention - AWG Opening - December 3rd 2007

Submitted by admin on June 28, 2010 - 9:46pm

CAN intervention AWG Monday 3 December 2007 4:30-6 pm

Mr. Chair, excellencies, distinguished delegates, welcome to Indonesia and Bali (say also in Bahasa Indonesia). Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the over 400 member organizations of the Climate Action Network, my name is Elshinta Suyoso Marsden of WWF-Indonesia.

2007 has been a remarkable climate year already. You have a unique opportunity, indeed responsibility, to crown this year with a Bali mandate that truly delivers on the personal commitments made by almost 100 heads of state to avoid dangerous warming through a post-2012 climate deal.

Like never before, the climate crisis is now in the public spotlight and expectations are very high for this meeting.

The combination of high population density and high levels of biodiversity together with a staggering 80,000 kilometers of coastline and 17,500 islands, makes Indonesia one of the countries most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The impacts are noticeable throughout our Asia-Pacific region; more frequent and severe heat waves, floods, extreme weather events and prolonged droughts will continue to lead to increased injury, illness and death. Continued warming temperatures will also increase the number of malaria and dengue fever cases and lead to an increase in other infectious diseases as a result of poor nutrition due to food production disruption.

The IPCC reports are unequivocal about the impacts the world will experience if we continue down the current path. The IPCC also shows we have the technologies and policy measures we need in order to avoid dangerous climate if, but only if, immediate action is taken.

The Climate Action Network (CAN) wishes to be quite clear in its demands, what we need from Bali is industrialized country leadership - putting warm words into cool action, and living up to commitments, old and new. We also need incentives from industrialized countries to enable developing countries to increase their contributions and do their fair share. This will require new mechanisms that substantially increase the use of low-carbon technologies in developing countries, and other mechanisms to greatly scale-up financial and technological support for adaptation.

The signal from Bali must be clear: a comprehensive negotiation must be launched. This must result, by the end of 2009, in an agreement on substantially greater emissions reductions globally, consistent with achieving the target of staying well below 2 degrees Celcius of warming from pre-industrial levels.

As to the negotiation process under the Kyoto track:
The first task of the AWG is to agree in Bali the indicative range of emissions reductions required from Annex I. CAN believes the scientific basis established by the IPCC commands the reductions will be at least within the currently proposed range of -25 to -40% of 1990 emissions by 2020.

We need to expand the workplan of the Ad-Hoc Working Group (AWG) to include, amongst others, the following important issues related to Annex I commitments beyond 2012.

deep emissions reductions in Annex I countries
fair and transparent target sharing criteria for Annex I
analysis of the existing flexible mechanisms
exploration of the scale and modes of finance, investment and technology transfer
expansion of Annex A to include emissions from shipping and aviation

The following para was not delivered but distributed to delegates as part of the printed statement, at the request of the UNFCCC.

As to the Convention track, there is a real need to formalise the Dialogue. As Brazil stated in Bonn: “Discussions in the absence of negotiations cannot prosper”. The lessons from the Dialogue must be taken up in formal negotiations under the Convention that explore how industrialized countries will incentivise the enhanced actions by developing country to decarbonise their development.

The mandate for this working group on the Bali roadmap should include, amongst others, the following important elements:

the overall level of ambition, based on a review of the best-available science, to keep global temperature increases as far below 2ºC as possible
launching negotiations to increase the contributions from developing countries
a fair and equitable process to define the fair share of each country
rapidly increasing support for the most vulnerable to adapt to unavoidable climate impacts
technology cooperation
a mechanism to guarantee reliable incentives to rapidly reduce absolute emissions from tropical deforestation and degradation in developing countries, which recognises the rights of Indigenous Peoples and the sovereignty of developing countries over their forests
an effective compliance regime.

Delivery resumed here...

Formal negotiations on both the Convention and Kyoto track should be concluded in 2009, to allow sufficient time for agreement to enter into force before the 31st of December 2012.

If global emissions are to peak by 2015, as the IPCC reports shows they should, what we agree in Bali is absolutely critical.

Do we condemn ourselves to suffer the litany of irreversible dangerous climate impacts laid out in the IPCC report, or do we embrace a sustainable future?

Negotiators, the world is looking to you to make the right decisions.

Tags:

Topics:

Region:

Organization:

Climate Action Network

Kyoto

UNFCCC

Related Event:

COP 13 - Bali

Rumors of Copenhagen's demise have been greatly exaggerated

Submitted by dturnbull on November 21, 2009 - 3:23pm

Originally posted on Grist.org on 16 November

Waking up on a dreary Sunday morning this weekend in Copenhagen (where I've recently moved to prepare for the upcoming climate talks in December), I was met with a barrage of headlines, mostly from U.S. media, telling me that Copenhagen is doomed to total failure and I might as well head off to Mexico City where next year's summit will be held. The New York Times cried out: World Leaders Agree to Delay a Deal on Climate Change. The Washington Post bellowed: Copenhagen talks unlikely to yield climate accord, leaders told. Not the best way to start a Sunday morning.

Is Copenhagen really over before it begins? Had I moved to this dark, rainy (but beautiful!) city for no reason? Should we all just pack it up and hope that political declarations will solve it all?

The answer, thankfully, quickly became a resounding "no." As Grist's own David Roberts is often the first to point out, the mainstream media clearly got it wrong. There's still hope -- a lot of it, at that.

Let's start with those headlines. Who are these "world leaders" who agreed to delay? Well, the plural may be accurate, but just barely.

In the 48 hours since initial reports, as Ministers and other government representatives have trickled into Copenhagen for the "pre-COP" preparatory meeting, it's become clear that while the media reported that all 19 APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) leaders were in agreement on the so-called "one agreement, two steps" approach, that's not at all the case.

The real story occurred at a hastily arranged APEC breakfast. Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen made a last-minute visit and surprised the room with a speech that was only vetted by a few of the so-called "leaders." One can only imagine a room full of bleary-eyed Heads of State sitting around a big table sipping their coffee and politely nodding at Rasmussen's climate change speech without really understanding how their nods would be translated by the media.

Rasmussen began his speech by saying:

...I would like to share with you how I believe a Copenhagen Agreement could be constructed to serve the dual purpose of providing for continued negotiations on a legal agreement and for immediate action...

And later towards the end of the speech he says:

Some of you might have wished for a different format or for a different legal structure. Still, I believe you will agree with me on one fundamental point: What matters at the end of the day is the ability of the Copenhagen Agreement to capture and reinforce global commitment to real actions.

Doesn't sound like consensus to me; it sounds like a man trying to convince an audience to go along with him. It's not entirely clear who actually did agree with the Prime Minister, but what is clear is that there is nowhere near consensus on such a delay approach; in fact, dozens of countries oppose it and are still wishing--and fighting--for more.

Now, what about the actual plan itself -- the "one agreement, two steps" plan? Two steps to an agreement doesn't sounds so bad, right?

As NRDC's Jake Schmidt wrote, the strategy might not be so bad if you actually thought that the second step would ever be taken. Unfortunately, what Rasmussen has put forward is a cynical approach. It's becoming clear that all he cares about is getting a "positive" result in Copenhagen, and that the second step could just be for show.

If you look closely at Rasmussen's APEC breakfast speech, there's very little incentive to actually finish the job in 2010 (as in, to take the "second step"). Rasmussen explains his vision thusly:

The Copenhagen Agreement should capture progress already achieved in the negotiations and at the same time provide for immediate action already from next year.

The Copenhagen Agreement should be political by nature, yet precise on specific commitments and binding on countries committing to reach certain targets and to undertake certain actions or provide agreed finance.

The Copenhagen Agreement should be global, comprehensive and substantial, yet flexible enough to accommodate countries with very different national circumstances.

The Copenhagen Agreement should finally mandate continued legal negotiations and set a deadline for their conclusion.

Why would any developed country with high emissions want to go back to the table and flesh out a legally binding deal after the pressure of Copenhagen has passed and there is no real obligation to do so? Despite his lip service to "continued legal negotiations", there's no clarity nor firm deadline. Rasmussen's invention of "politically binding"--a term no one seems willing or able to define--is also repeated here.

Furthermore, there is only a passing mention of the Kyoto Protocol later in the speech. Despite what some would have you think, however, the Kyoto Protocol does not expire in 2012. In fact, in 2005, the parties to the Kyoto Protocol agreed to negotiate a second commitment period (2013-2017) and further committed in Bali in 2007 to reaching a conclusion on what that second commitment period would look like. In Rasmussen's vision, this goal seems to disappear in favor of a "politically binding" outcome.

Indeed, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper--one of the leading climate negotiation blockers now that George W. Bush is out of the picture--has been positively beaming in the press about this announcement. Not a sign of a positive development.

Luckily, there's still time to push for more. The Alliance of Small Island States, the African Group of nations, and other vulnerable and least developed countries will surely be pushing back on this plan during the prep meetings in Copenhagen this week. In fact, 11 Pacific Island States already have. Some European nations are also likely to stand up to this plan.

The planet and its people need a fair, ambitious, and binding outcome from this process. Countries should be working on such a document in Copenhagen and they can and should finish it there. After all, it's what they committed to in Bali just two years ago.

Tags:

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

Lars Loekke Rasmussen

dturnbull's blog

The Grand Rehearsal for Copenhagen

Submitted by Anonymous on November 2, 2009 - 7:49am

What a difference only three weeks has made. Delegates, before checking up on your homework assignments from Bangkok, let's take a step back and look at the wider political picture.

Several governments previously not seen or heard from are frantically preparing for Copenhagen. Their heads of government and state want to make a strong statement when the big show premieres in 34 days ... and counting. These leaders want to do the right thing for their people and the planet. They are asking the hard question: What has prevented negotiators from implementing the Bali consensus?

Two things are standing in the way of an equitable agreement that limits or prevents dangerous global warming: too much fear and not enough ambition.

First, there is unsubstantiated fear of a legally binding agreement. ECO has written before about the commitment-phobes wandering these hallways. Responsibility and trust are what´s needed here!

Without trust -- and the transparency and accountability that underpin it -- no real deal can be had. But just as important, without those that have the greatest historical responsibility coming forward, Copenhagen will go down in history as the largest, most expensive party in the restaurant at the end of the universe.

Secondly, there is insufficient ambition, and here is what we mean: enough ambition to have a future ... to enable people to enjoy the fruits of their labour without the constant fear of looming environmental disaster ... the ambition to leave to the next generation a greener planet.

Transition to low carbon development must be brought about within the next decade. The foundations for this urgently needed shift must be contained in the Copenhagen agreement. And what do we mean by a fundamental shift? Only good things: investment in green technology worldwide, drastic cuts in emissions, and support for sustainable development and adaptation that really works. Real ambition leads to a real transition.

Moving forward this week, Parties need to produce the manageable strong negotiating text that somehow eluded them in Bangkok. The important questions can be answered. ECO knows you can do it.

The temptation to declare success along the road to Copenhagen, no matter what the outcome, will of course be great. So, to help sort the high road from the other roads, this week ECO will highlight attempts to greenwash and continue to award Fossils to those Parties who have earned them. Remember, however, proposals that banish fear and build ambition will be get praise just as swiftly and surely.

The negotiations this week offer delegates an opportunity to give strength to vulnerable communities and make our ecosystems stronger. Decisions and discussions to date have yet to fully embrace that opportunity. It's time to pick up the pace from Bangkok, focus on the essential elements of a Copenhagen agreement, and prioritise the remaining time on negotiating those key points.

So for those who have misplaced the homework assignment from Bangkok: What do we want out of Barcelona? Progress, including but not limited to elements in the highlighted box.

The rising tide of local climate action is capturing the hearts and minds of people around the world. As we get to work in Barcelona, many of them are working just as hard to raise awareness and strengthen the resolve of their political leaders from Delhi to Washington, from Warsaw to Tokyo, and say, just do it in Copenhagen. Will you?

Tags: