Tag: barcelona climate talks

REDD haunted by LULUCF?

Submitted by Anonymous on

A spooky story for the last day of negotiations: Once upon a time, ECO recalls, a list of LULUCF principles was determined and included the following: "That the implementation of land use, land-use change and forestry activities contributes to the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of natural resources."

Yet today, under the rules for forests in developed countries, conversion of natural forests to plantations is not accounted.  Indeed, native forests and plantations are not even distinguished, making it impossible to directly track this important indicator of the impacts of LULUCF on biodiversity. The LULUCF principles have become wispy spirits haunting the forests of the North.

Today, forest conversion has become a bone of contention in the REDD discussions. ECO is glad to see that the safeguard against conversion of natural forests is back in the REDD text, although it is bracketed and vague. Inclusion of an improved version of this provision in the final Copenhagen agreement will be an important step towards banishing LULUCF spectres from REDD.

In addition, however, principles alone cannot ensure that REDD lives up to its promises. How will Parties ensure that conversion of natural forests to plantations does not occur under REDD as long as the definition of “forest” encompasses everything from tropical jungle to oil palm plantations?

Conversion of forests to plantations not only has dire consequences for biodiversity, it also increases emissoins.  And so ECO asks, what about the 'E' in REDD?  If you look closely, the definitional gap that exists in LULUCF as an important lesson for REDD.  Natural forests and plantations must be defined separately and emissions from conversion must be accounted for, just as degradation of forests must be defined and accounted for.

Relying on carbon accounting alone to prevent conversion is not enough, warn the ghosts of LULUCF, who whisper that accounting for degradation never became mandatory.  In the real world of tropical forests, proxies may be used to estimate carbon stocks, and if forest cover is one of them, then distinguishing plantations from forests becomes crucial. In addition, defining natural forests and plantations will help clarify what REDD is all about, and ensure confidence in its effectiveness to protect the climate.

ECO knows Parties are hesitant to enter a process of developing definitions akin to a recurring ghost story of the Marrakesh Accords. However, negotiators must use several potions to banish the phantoms of LULUCF loopholes. One of them is carbon accounting strong enough to ensure that emissions caused by conversion are seen by all and not just the atmosphere. Another is definitions. Employing the forest categories suggested by the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) of the Convention on

Biological Diversity would help protect REDD from the grinning spectre of unaccounted-for emissions lurking in the newly converted forests of Annex I.

Tags: 
barcelona climate talks
haunted house
LULUCF

Healthier Climate Change Talks

Submitted by Anonymous on

Two organizations highlighted at a mid-week press conference that focusing on the health effects of climate change puts a human face on the negotiations.

Josh Karliner (Health Care Without Harm) and Genon Jensen (Health and Environment Alliance) presented Dr. Roberto Bertollini of the World Health Organization with a larger than life "Prescription for a Healthy Planet" endorsed by dozens of major international health organizations.  Among those supporting the diagnosis of a planet increasingly presenting the symptoms of a sick climate are the International Council of Nurses, representing nursing associations in 128 countries, the World Federation of Public Health Associations, and the Standing Committee of European Doctors, which brings together 27 national medical associations in countries.  When filled, the prescription will help negotiators strike a deal for a strong and legally binding agreement in Copenhagen.

Public health professionals are focusing on how extreme weather events such as heat waves and floods affect their patients and their work in poor and rich countries alike. Earlier this year, the Global Humanitarian Forum noted that increasingly severe heat waves, floods, storms and forest fires could push the annual death toll to 500,000 by 2030.  Research in Europe shows that heat waves increase death rates, especially among older people and those with breathing problems.

In contrast, reducing carbon emissions will bring positive health returns. For example, said Dr. Bertollini, “choosing policies that reduce carbon emissions bring positive returns for public health.  For example, developing sustainable public transport policies which encourage walking and cycling, and eating less red meat, can help mitigate climate change and also improve health."

The European Commission has estimated that a 20% reduction in carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2020 could lead to savings on national health bills of up to EURO 51 billion in the EU alone. Research supported by CAN-Europe, the Health and Environment Alliance and WWF shows that savings would be increased to EURO 76 billion with a 30% reduction.

The Prescription for a Healthy Planet diagnoses the planet's problem as overconsumption of fossil fuels leading to global climate destabilization.  It calls on global leaders to protect public health, move to clean energy, reduce emissions and provide finance for global action.

In Europe, HEAL and HCWH are calling for a 40% reduction target and for the EU  to contribute at least EURO 35 billion per year to fund global action on climate change, of which a proportion should be allocated to the health sector.

These groups have urged negotiators to strengthen the health dimension in the current text. They will also lead a health delegation to Copenhagen where leading doctors, nurses, public health experts and a group of trainee doctors will be spreading the word in the halls and on the streets.

Tags: 
barcelona climate talks
drought
flood
Individual and political action on climate change

A Convenient Truth

Submitted by Anonymous on


Never waste a good crisis, runs the adage. On Wednesday, the (IIASA) presented a new report outlining Annex I mitigation costs and potentials based on the effects of the economic crisis. The report uses post-crisis GDP projections based on the IEA’s 2009 world energy outlook.

Here are the headlines
•    In 2020 Annex I emissions are 6% below 1990 levels in the reference scenario.
•    The cost of implementing the most ambitious Annex 1 pledges would be  -0.03% to 0.01% of GDP.
•    The carbon price settles at EURO 3 per tonne.
•    An extra 10% reduction could be achieved at the same equilibrium carbon price (-27% instead of -17% from 1990).
•    Some country targets are well above their emissions in the reference scenario, which could create a new surplus of emissions rights.

In other words, it is now much easier to achieve the emission targets we need. The world is demand investments in the infrastructure of the 21st century – renewable energy, smart grids and mass transport. The economic transformation we need could become a job-generator for economies blacking out with systemic unemployment. And we can save our climate, which is set on a course to disaster.  So the economic crisis also turns out to be an opportunity, but this means making a choice.

For the benefit of parties, as an example here is a table of new economic models on the costs of the EU’s 30% reduction pledge, in the light of the crisis.

And what is true for the EU is true for Annex I as a whole: emissions caps developed for a pre-crisis world can easily been tightened again in a post-crisis world, to benefit both the climate and the economy.

Tags: 
barcelona climate talks
Emissions trading
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
renewable energy

A Little Clarity, Please

Submitted by Anonymous on

Now that the dust has mostly settled and Parties are back at the negotiating table in the KP track, it is a good moment to take stock and reflect on the African Group gambit earlier in the week.

An important result from Wednesday's plenary is that industrialized countries will put their emission reduction targets on the table with no further delays, including the portions that will be met through international offsets and from land use change and forestry.  It is truly amazing that after four years of negotiating the post-2012 regime this information isn't readily available.

Some Annex I countries haven't even tabled their overall targets yet.  (And ECO won't comment here on the non-Kyoto major developed country and whether they have numbers on the table.)

It is no wonder that many developing countries are feeling more than a little frustrated by the lack of progress on emission reductions commitments from rich countries.  If all developed countries actually delivered the requested information on their targets it would, at long last, provide the needed clarity on their opening bids, including how much of their effort will be domestic actions to reduce emissions, as well as how much will simply be bought from abroad.  And countries planning on achieving a large portion of their target from LULUCF credits could be queried for clarification on how they expect to do so without resorting to weak accounting rules that allow phantom credits.

The agreement to put these details on the table is an important moment in the negotiations. But mind you, what this development does not do is deliver actual decisions, like an aggregate target for developed countries. If that kind of progress isn't seen soon, no one should be surprised if frustrations rise further and tactics become bolder. Of course, further breakdowns, here and going forward in Copenhagen, can be avoided if developing countries see political leadership from their rich counterparts on the critical issues such as Annex I emission targets.

Tags: 
barcelona climate talks
Carbon finance
climate change
Copenhagen
Land use land-use change and forestry

Linking Conditions for Human Dignity: Climate Protection and Human Rights

Submitted by Anonymous on

When the African Group raised the stakes in the KP plenary earlier this week, its representatives explained that the action was prompted by the serious human suffering already occurring in Africa due to climate change.  This was an important reminder that negotiators must preserve and strengthen human rights language in the negotiating text.

Human rights are the expression of the most basic conditions necessary for a life of dignity.  In that light, the link to climate impacts is obvious.  As the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights concluded in a study released earlier this year, “Climate change-related impacts … have a range of implications for the effective enjoyment of human rights.”

The current negotiating text refers to the human rights implications of climate change as well as the need to protect vulnerable peoples.  This is a critical step in the right direction.  However, these references need to be fleshed out and strengthened.  Human rights must be central to the definition of both the problems created by climate change and their solutions.

The shared vision text explicitly recognizes that climate impacts “have a range of direct and indirect implications for the full and effective enjoyment of human rights.”  This welcome language should be strengthened by reaffirming that “human beings have the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being,” as recognized in the Stockholm Declaration, which is itself referenced in the UNFCCC.  The shared vision should also emphasize that a successful international climate framework will require effective mechanisms for participation at the local, national and international levels, reinforcing Article 6 of the UNFCCC and the Rio Declaration.

The “four pillars” text must also include rights language.  The mitigation text should reiterate Parties’ existing obligations to respect, protect and promote human rights.  Similarly, negotiators must reinsert the reference to human rights obligations removed from the adaptation text in Bangkok, and strengthen text on spillover effects that would ensure that human rights, such as the right to food, guide efforts to identify and prevent such harms.  In addition, strengthening the paragraph on climate-induced migration and linking it to human rights would provide crucial protections for the millions likely to be displaced as a result of climate change.

The European and InterAmerican courts of human rights have both recognized that access to information and participation in decision-making are fundamental to protecting human rights in the context of environmental threats.  The text must therefore guarantee all relevant stakeholders the rights to information and participation for all relevant stakeholders, including free prior informed consent for indigenous and other communities in accordance with international obligations.

Last month, the government of the Maldives held an underwater cabinet meeting to highlight climate impacts that would threaten the right to statehood itself.  From Africa to the Alps to the Islands, the rights of vulnerable individuals and communities require explicit protection in the final Copenhagen agreement.

As Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey said in September, “It is essential from a human rights perspective that the Copenhagen accord not only ensures the reduction of dangerous greenhouse gas emissions, but also guarantees the participation of citizens.”

Tags: 
Africa
africa human rights
barcelona climate talks
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Commissioning the Climate Finance Castle

Submitted by Anonymous on

When constructing a solid building, starting from scratch is often more efficient and cheaper than to trying to retrofit an existing building for a new, much larger purpose.  In the same way, developing countries argue that when it the design of the financial mechanism, a new architectural approach is needed.

ECO observes that over the last two years the construction of a modern home for climate finance has progressed significantly, with one particular building block providing an increasingly solid foundation from which the rest of the design can benefit: the Adaptation Fund under the Kyoto Protocol.

This result has come about because of solid guidance from the commissioning body (the Kyoto Parties) combined with the time and attention of the architects (the Adaptation Fund Board) to carefully lay out the necessary details of both form and function.

First, developing countries will soon be able to use their keys to access the front doors (direct access through national implementing entities), or enter through the side (multilateral implementing entities) if their personal keys do not yet fit.
Second, house rules are crucial for the successful long-term maintenance of the castle. The condition for obtaining a key will be agreeing to the house rules (that is, special attention to particularly vulnerable communities and sound fiduciary management standards).

The crux of the matter in this construction project is that all those who commissioned the Adaptation Fund (the Kyoto Parties) had equal influence and represented a balance of interests in guiding the architects. Clear instructions from the commissioners to the architects were a crucial precondition for a solid and successful construction, while the architects had to work out the operational details. In the event, the architects did good work last year before Poznan, where about 99% of their proposals satisfied the Parties without major controversy, with significant additional progress over the last months.

The same principles applied successfully to the Adaptation Fund 'building' also will apply to the climate finance 'castle.'  The heading for the instructions for the climate finance blueprint (‘guidance’/’authority’) is not sufficient by itself. The climate finance architects must also be clearly accountable to those who have secured their services. Furthermore, the architects must adhere to their original instructions rather than project plans other clients propose.

There is no complete agreement yet on what the final climate finance castle will look like. But ECO has checked the plans and is pleased to see that many proposals reflect elements of the Adaptation Fund blueprint.

The Japanese finance proposal published on Monday contains an explicit reference 'to take into account the current practices of the Adaptation Fund.'  The US finance proposal also outlines support activities administered by domestic institutions in host countries. This sounds quite compatible with the way the Adaptation Fund architects designed the direct access modalities.

The Group of 77 and China are reasonably demanding their own keys (direct access), but also a balanced representation of all Parties in the group of architects. So there are positive signs that the blueprint of the Adaptation Fund is now providing a useful model for constructing the climate finance castle, extending well beyond just adaptation finance.

Now that one building block of the climate finance castle is laid, it is crucial that the necessary investments are made, since this part of the castle is much smaller than what is needed to fulfill the requirements of climate finance.  Putting in additional resources to the Adaptation Fund would consolidate and accelerate the castle construction work immediately.

Tags: 
barcelona climate talks
castle
Kyoto Protocol

Dying for change?

Submitted by Anonymous on

ECO would like an answer to this question: What would you do if your country, lands and the livelihoods of your people were going to become unliveable or disappear under water or sand or face substantial damages beyond their capacity to adapt?

Adaptation negotiators entering the halls for the next informal session on adaptation ought to keep this concern clearly in mind, for it is the very real question faced by many of the world’s poorest countries.  And the worry is growing.  Recent Hadley Centre research shows that business-as-usual on our globe puts us on a pathway to a 4 to 6o C temperature increase by 2060 – and hotter in many places. Even current emission reductions targets, as analysed by Project Catalyst, point to a world of 3o and above.

Some Parties, mindful of this reality, are suggesting an international mechanism to address the unavoidable loss and damage from the adverse effects of climate change.  They propose using insurance and compensation where adaptation is no longer possible.

But an informal survey of the scene reveals that the big, dirty, polluting, developed countries have very little interest in making progress on the issue. For example, Canada earned a Fossil of the Day with its suggestion to take loss and damage from unavoidable impacts off the list of adaptation objectives.

But deflecting this problem means that millions of extremely vulnerable people, for whom adaptation is less or no longer an option, would be left behind in a Copenhagen deal and face a grim future. ECO finds this unacceptable, dear reader, and so should you.  There is still time for Canada, and for that matter the other developed countries that are currently hesitating to address this key issue, to broaden their view.

The first step is easy, and it would be difficult to find a justifiable reason not to take it: add a preambular paragraph that recognises that the problem exists, and firmly resolve to act on the issue by listing it in para 3, objectives.
The next step is equally clear and logical: agree a work programme to develop elements to assess and address loss and damage from unavoidable impacts.

For the last but most critical step, the foundations already exist in section D of the adaptation non-paper: a mechanism under the Copenhagen agreement to support vulnerable developing countries to build resilience and minimise loss and damage from unavoidable impacts, and to recover and rehabilitate livelihoods lost or damaged.

Some say it's all too difficult.  But that's a matter of priorities.  Could you sleep at night if your neighbor's lands and livelihood became untenable because you did nothing?

Tags: 
barcelona climate talks
drought
famine

Barcelona´s first hearing on adaptation

Submitted by Anonymous on

Yesterday, the first contact group on adaptation in Barcelona took place as the countdown to Copenhagen enters its final phase. It was an extraordinary hearing although ECO struggled to hear because the acoustics were bad.

And there were some important things ECO wanted to hear clearly. The chair set out the mission: finish on Friday with a concise and manageable negotiation text that can be taken back to capitals for full review before Copenhagen.

Yet not all Parties seemed to share this objective.  A well-known big oil-exporting country complained about the chairs and the secretariat providing too much guidance, with the argument that this is a party-driven process. But ECO notes that everything in the text is a product of input by Parties.  The chairs’ guidance is a way of facilitating what otherwise would be largely unmanageable.

And time is running out.

Looking forward, let's review some things that definitely would be good to hear today with respect to the adaptation non-paper.

The preambular section must recognize the fact that there will be loss and damage from past emissions, and it is important to recognize who is responsible.

Under section A, the scope of action must include the provision of support, and not just the adaptation actions (Para. 5).  A credible response to the challenge of adaptation must also prioritize the needs of vulnerable countries on the international level, and the needs of particularly vulnerable people, groups and communities and ecosystems when it comes to implementation within developing countries (Para. 6).  The communities and people included in these groups should be identified by countries and should not be internationally prescribed. The meaningful inclusion of the vulnerable in all stages of decision-making must be ensured, in line with their human rights (Para. 7).

Under section B, ECO hopes to hear clearly recognition of the full range of adaptation activities, including support for situations where adaptation is no longer possible, and the need to scale up work as soon as possible.
Section C gets to the crux of the matter: the means for implementation. Legally binding funding obligations for developed countries are crucial if the Copenhagen Agreement is to provide a serious response to climate change.

Resources must be provided in addition to Official Development Assistance (ODA) targets and not come at the expense of the poor who are denied the expansion of basic services because ODA finance is diverted into adaptation. And it is clear that on average at least USD $50 billion per year of predictable and reliable resources are needed between 2013 and 2017, with further scale-up in the future.  These funds should be delivered as periodic grant installments, so that recipient governments can plan their adaptation programmes with the certainty of receiving funds.

So delegates, please hear us clearly.  Get to work right here, right now. There are only 8 sessions left until Copenhagen. Can’t you hear the countdown clock?  Tcktcktck . . .

Tags: 
Barcelona
barcelona climate summit
barcelona climate talks
Subscribe to Tag: barcelona climate talks