Tag: bonn

Climate talks open as NGOS urge nations to make every moment count between now and 2015

Submitted by rvoorhaar on June 3, 2013 - 9:54am

Climate Action Network (CAN) urged countries to continue to make progress outlining the elements of a comprehensive, global agreement that puts us on the path to fair, sustainable development at the UN climate negotiations opening in Bonn, Germany, today.

“Every moment counts,” said Enrique Maurtua Konstantinidis from Climate Action Network Latin America. “Especially given that atmospheric carbon pollution concentration just pushed through the 400 parts per million landmark and that there is likely to be as few as five negotiating sessions between now and when the global agreement is supposed to be signed in 2015.”

Key elements that need to be taken forward to the major talks in Warsaw in November include a way to fairly measure national climate action and financial support which takes into account differing circumstances as well as defining the structure and principles of the agreed international mechanism to deal with communities and cultures which are irretrievably lost as a result of climate change.

Sivan Kartha, from the Stockholm Environmental Institute, said agreeing a way to measure fairness of climate action could be the key to unlocking progress towards the 2015 agreement.

At the same time, Jason Anderson from WWF said countries need to commit to concrete steps to reduce carbon pollution before 2020.

“CAN - the world’s biggest network of NGOs working on climate change - is urging countries to put their support behind a plan for leaders to increase their 2020 carbon pollution reduction commitments next year at a summit being held by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon,” Anderson said.

“This is vital if we are going to rectify the fact we are not doing nearly enough to deliver a safe climate," Maurtua

Konstantinidis said.

The year was not even half way over and we had already seen devastating floods in Argentina and the melting of Arctic sea ice being linked to not only Australia's harshest ever summer, where they needed new colors to define hot on the map but also a frozen spring in Europe and North America.

Contact:

For more information or for one-on-one interviews with the NGO experts, please contact Climate Action Network International’s communications coordinator Ria Voorhaar on +49 (0) 157 317 35568 or rvoorhaar@climatenetwork.org.

Climate Action Network (CAN) is a global network of over 800 NGOs working to promote government and individual action to limit human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels

Tags:

2015 global agreement

Topics:

Adaptation

Equity/effort-sharing

Mitigation

Organization:

AWG-ADP

UNFCCC

Putting the “2 (degrees)” back in Workstream 2

Submitted by rvoorhaar on April 29, 2013 - 1:37am

It is well-trodden ground that there is a huge gap between what Parties say they want (staying below 2°C and keeping the door open to 1.5°C) and what Parties have pledged to contribute between now and 2020 to achieve that planetary necessity.

In theory, Workstream 2 has already identified how to bridge the gap through: 1) improving developed countries’ woefully inadequate 2020 emission reduction targets; 2) identifying ways to enable and support developing countries in upping their own pre-2020 ambition; and 3) joint complementary action in addition to the first two areas on everything from phasing out HFCs to fossil fuel subsidies. The task now is to JUST DO IT.

ECO thought “doing it” would require no explanation, but some recent happenings in many developed countries are getting their positions all wrong.

First and foremost – and we really thought this was obvious – the thing that needs to go up is the target, not the temperature. For the EU this means moving to 30% - a move which really shouldn’t be that difficult considering that it has already achieved its 20% target almost 8 years ahead of schedule and will actually achieve more than that (around 25-27%) by 2020. How can the EU host 2 COPs over the next 3 years and ask the rest of the world to do more while it decides to take a break? In addition, the EU’s incompetence at repairing its own emissions trading scheme is pretty mournful. A modest measure to temporarily limit the surplus of allowances in the EU carbon market was recently rejected by some within the European Parliament.

The rest of the developed world is no better, and many are far, far worse. There are rumours that Japan is planning to lower its ambition from its current 2020 pledge. Australia is not likely to do anything about its tiny 5% pledge and, depending of the outcome of the upcoming national elections, things could hit rock bottom, even though the Australian public is strongly in favour of climate action. The US pledge could be labelled ambitious, if the ambition was to overshoot 4°C, while the country is barely on the path to achieve its very weak 2020 target. And Canada – well, their only ambition is to withdraw from as many international treaties as possible (if you hadn’t heard, they’ve also withdrawn from the UN Convention to Combat Desertification).

This drooping ambition level needs to stop. By 2014 ALL Parties (Kyoto Parties and free-riders alike) will have to increase the ambition of their 2020 pledges. Without this, you won’t get a global agreement in 2015, and – worse – you will not prevent dangerous climate change from destroying entire civilisations and threatening the future of your children.

There is also a role for developing countries in increasing near-term ambition. It is worth assessing what additional ambition more advanced developing countries can muster as well as what precise support will enable all to do even more. Jointly, developing and developed countries should use Workstream 2 to create an upward spiral of increasing support (finance, technology and capacity building) and ambition triggered and enabled by such support. This could also help avoid that, due to, for example low levels of climate finance, developing countries may find themselves in situations where they lock-in low ambition because of inadequately supported actions.

Finally, there are the complementary actions. The COP in Warsaw would ideally invite other bodies (Montreal Protocol, ICAO and IMO, G20 and so forth) to foster actions in their spheres of expertise and influence to result in additional emission reductions. Those actions would need to come in addition to what Parties have committed to do based on their 2020 targets, pledges and NAMAs, rather than as means to achieve them. This is why ECO and some Parties have used the expression “complementary”, a word whose proximity to the somewhat less ambitious “complimentary” should not create the false impression that avoiding catastrophic climate change is an issue of voluntary action – it is not. It is an obligation Parties have towards the millions of people suffering climate change already today, and towards the hundreds of millions if not billions who will be suffering tomorrow, whose lives and livelihoods are threatened by inaction, complacency and pretension currently at display at these negotiations.

Tags:

Topics:

Equity/effort-sharing

Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Mitigation

Region:

Europe

Related Event:

ADP Second Session 2013

rvoorhaar's blog

Climate action takes on split personality ahead of first UN talks of 2013

Submitted by rvoorhaar on April 25, 2013 - 3:34pm

With this year’s first session of the UN climate negotiations to open on Monday, international politics surrounding the planetary climate crisis were taking on a split personality, according to NGO experts speaking at a press briefing today by Climate Action Network-International and the Global Call for Climate Action.

According to Alden Meyer, Union of Concerned Scientists' director of strategy and policy, on the one hand, there are some signs of progress on climate action.

More developing countries appear keen to adopt low carbon development plans, renewable energy costs continue to decline, and the US and China just launched a process to develop a set of joint actions that “set the kind of powerful example that can inspire the world."

In addition, several key high-profile political actors, such as IMF chief Christine Lagarde and World Bank president Jim Yong Kim, are calling for increased action on climate change.

But on the other hand, there are several signs that the world is not coming to grips with the severity of the situation, Meyer said, such as continuation of some US$1 trillion a year in fossil fuel subsidies, increasing efforts to develop unconventional oil reserves and expand coal exports, and the growing gap documented by UNEP between the reductions in emissions required by 2020 in order to keep global temperature increases below 2 degrees Centigrade, and the much higher level expected as a result of current national pledges of action.

"To top it off, we aren’t seeing the bold leadership needed by our political leaders to deal with the climate crisis, particularly those from developed countries,” Meyer said. “This must change – and soon – if we are to get the much more ambitious set of international and national actions that are required to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.”

Hope in the face of the climate threat was coming increasingly from developing countries.

Lina Li, climate policy researcher from the Greenovation Hub in Beijing, said after some positive domestic developments on the climate front, there was potential for China to do more on the international stage.

"The North-South paradigm that underpinned the international development and environment agenda is posing more questions than answers. Conventional wisdoms are being challenged while new imaginations are yet to be articulated. China’s new role, with the ongoing geographic power shift, will be identified within this context. This is one of the key questions that need to be addressed if we are going to achieve a fair deal in 2015," Lina said.

Meanwhile, this year's major climate negotiations will be held in Poland in November, a country renowned for blocking further climate action in the EU, according to Julia Michalak, climate policy officer for Climate Action Network, Europe.

"It’s difficult for the country that keeps looking back-ward to move the international process forward. Poland keeps mentioning its past achievement and has no vision on how to design its own climate policy, so it’s difficult to imagine it can offer a lot to international process."

Tags:

Region:

Related Event:

ADP Second Session 2013

Do Not Turn the Spirit of Durban Into the Ghost of Durban!

Submitted by MBrockley on May 25, 2012 - 5:12am

As ECO watches the crash and burn exercise currently taking place in the Durban Platform negotiations, we thought it would be a good moment to remind Parties about the spirit that emerged during the closing plenary in Durban.

Durban was a critical turning point for the future of the climate regime. While it resulted in what negotiators called a delicate balance, it left much for the Parties to do afterwards, in particular the need to tackle the glaring gap in reducing global emissions and providing climate finance. ECO was relieved that after hard fought battles, a sense of responsibility and leadership prevailed in Durban. Parties were willing to set aside their hardline positions in the interest of reaching an agreement, for both pre-2020 and post-2020 periods.

ECO recognizes that it essentially took the G77+China and the EU to save the day – with the EU's positive moves of agreeing to sign on to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. In doing so, it helped keep alive the only legally binding agreement on climate, as well as restoring some faith amongst developing countries. In turn, these countries agreed to be part of a new global climate regime that would be applicable to all in the future. This was a huge leap of faith on their part, in a context where very little leadership in taking ambitious actions on either reduction of emissions or delivery of finance has been demonstrated by developed countries.

But as the dust settled, ECO realized that not all governments were that generous. Somehow in the cut and thrust of those last moments in Durban, a band of countries managed to escape the glare of the headlights. The largest developed country polluters, like the US, Canada, Russia and Japan, did not offer anything by way of compromise. Instead, some jumped ship from the Kyoto Protocol, while the US dug in its heels when asked to commit to comparable emissions reduction actions – both on common accounting and an adequate target. ECO reckons that they must have been rubbing their hands in glee when they got away without having to make any commitments. They now see an opportunity to lock in their precious “pledge and review system”. They apparently believe that their status in the pre-2020 period is equal to that of developing countries and that this bottom-up, non-science-based, non-equity based approach is all that we should be getting.

The only way to avoid this fate, and ensure non-Kyoto developed countries honour their commitments to comparability, and yes, even QELROs, is through the AWG-LCA, where pre-2020 mitigation ambition for non-Kyoto parties will have to be addressed in a principled, rules-based manner, comparable to Kyoto parties. ECO observes that’s why these countries are the most resistant to addressing their commitments and responsibilities under the LCA.

The AWG-LCA should complete its work and the process must determine mitigation action for these countries. The spotlight is therefore shining on them once again, and they will be expected to offer comparable action. And so, we wonder, what will they offer? ECO sees that they are now seeking cover from taking responsibility by trying to jump to the Durban Platform.

While ambition should also be pursued under all tracks, ECO wants to remind the US, Canada, Japan, Russia and others who have not joined the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol that they are developed countries, with clear obligations under the Convention and Bali Action Plan, and in terms of history, morality and legality. ECO challenges Australia and New Zealand to decide which way they will jump – ECO will be the first to welcome them into Annex B with QELROs that lead to a fair share of real gross emissions reductions.

You all must shine with the spirit of Durban – there is no darkness left to fade into.

Tags:

Related Event:

Bonn Climate Change Conference 2012

MBrockley's blog

CAN Intervention - Long Term Finance Consultations - May 22, 2012

Submitted by MBrockley on May 23, 2012 - 7:45am

LTF_Work_Programme_Intervention_-_May_22.pdf

Distinguished delegates. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Lies Craeynest from Oxfam International, and I will speak on behalf of the Climate Action Network.

Thank you co-chairs for your proposal on how to implement the decisions made in Durban on the Long Term Finance work programme. Many delegates from developing countries have spoken about the need for a balanced approach in taking forward the Durban agreement, and have stressed that the discussion on raising mitigation ambition pre 2020 needs to go hand in hand with the discussion on mobilising the means of implementation to do so. We agree.

<more>

Tags:

Topics:

Organization:

Climate Action Network

UNFCCC

Related Event:

Bonn Climate Change Conference 2012

FOSSIL OF THE DAY: Week 1

Submitted by MBrockley on May 22, 2012 - 7:08am

“First Place Fossils go to the USA, Canada, Japan, Russia, Australia, New Zealand and China.

The first 1st place Fossil goes to the USA, for its continuing attempts to block negotiations on sources of financing, and refusing to discuss how it will continue to scale up financing in 2013 and onwards, towards the agreed goal of US$100 billion by 2020. We know that the USA faces some deep denial issues internally, as well as avoidance issues in the negotiations around issues like equity, capacity building and an international mechanism on loss and damage. Until the US is willing to have a frank and honest discussion leading to substantive decisions, it will be an impediment to this process.

An additional 1st place fossil goes to Canada for – can you guess???? – reneging on their commitments to fight climate change by withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol. While many of you enjoyed your first full night of sleep after Durban overtime, the Canadians had no such luck. Barely off the plane, Canada’s Environment Minister wasted no time in confirming the COP’s worst kept secret that Canada was officially pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol. Many delegates probably had already given up on Canada at that point, but those of us that live within that vast, beautiful, hockey-loving country have had to continue to bear witness to whatcan only be called the government of polluters’ puppets. While Canada’s actions are clearly in a world of its own when it comes to bad behavior in the Kyoto Protocol, there are others that are behaving in fossil worthy manner. Here, we’re looking at Japan and Russia for refusing to participate in the second commitment period and Australia and New Zealand for missing the critical May 1 deadline to submit their QELROS. Australia and New Zealand are on notice that we expect these submissions by the end of Bonn – though the sooner the better, as it is causing trouble in the KP.

And the final1st place Fossil goes to China for holding in abeyance the work programme on scaling-up pre-2020 ambition under the ADP. We agree with China that the ADP must not allow developed countries to jump ship from the KP and LCA to a weaker regime, but Parties can't hold critical parts of the Durban package in abeyance, which amounts to punting them to the other side of the moon. We can't hold the fight against climate change in abeyance!”

Tags:

Topics:

Equity/effort-sharing

Region:

Eastern Europe and Eurasia

China

Related Event:

Bonn Climate Change Conference 2012

MBrockley's blog

Mmmmm mmmmm MRV!

Submitted by MBrockley on May 19, 2012 - 3:27am

Developing countries have long insisted on the need for transparent and coordinated provision of financial support, to enable independent review of the extent to which commitments are fulfilled, as well as maximise the effectiveness of the funding. Moreover, transparency is vital to ensuring that the funds are equitably distributed over all developing countries in need of support, with priority for the most vulnerable developing countries.

At present, though there have been some positive steps taken in this direction, unless ECO was not invited that magical day, there is no common framework for measuring, reporting and verification (MRV) of international climate finance that fully captures existing financial flows.

ECO was happy to hear that at the end of 2011 the European Commission proposed a new EU regulation (referred to as the “MMR” Regulation) on monitoring and reporting for EU climate finance. The MMR (yet another acronym that delegates and observers should learn by heart) will standardize climate finance reporting requirements for EU Member States. We are glad to hear that the proposal is going through the EU legislative process this year, just in time to monitor the EU’s post-2012 financial commitments for climate action.

But the MMR still needs guidance from EU Member States on key concepts and methodologies to be included in the legislation: what is meant by climate finance and in particular “private climate finance”? What is “new and additional” climate finance and how are the baselines set for measuring this? How should the MMR count the climate-relevant activities and outcomes when reporting on projects with broader objectives?

In the grand tradition of EU stakeholder consultation processes, ECO knows that its ideas will be read and considered, and so takes the opportunity to recommend that the MMR include the following:

- detailed information on where the money is going

- comparable information that can be aggregated

- sources and recipient institutions as well as the channels used need to be visible in order to keep track of the financial flow

- Also, for this process to be really transparent, it is crucial that this information be made accessible to third parties, including recipient countries and NGOs and that the reported information be quadruple-checked by independent finance experts

But all this being said, ECO would like to remind all parties that any MMR or MRV proposal does not make any sense as long as there is no finance to MMR or MRV (or whatever you want to call it). At the end of the day, we need developed countries to start pledging substantial, scaled-up climate funding for 2013 onwards. Or the MMR will be yet another empty shell.

And because ECO knows that parties want to hear more about the major MRV reform behind the obscure acronym, the ACT Alliance and CAN-Europe went to great lengths to organize a side event on the role of private finance in climate action next Monday.

ECO will definitely be there.

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

Bonn Climate Change Conference 2012

MBrockley's blog

CAN Intervention - SBSTA Opening Plenary - May 14, 2012

Submitted by MBrockley on May 14, 2012 - 12:41pm

SBSTA_agriculture_intervention_final.pdf

Mr. Chair, Distinguished Delegates,

I speak on behalf of Climate Action Network, a global civil society network of over 700 NGOs. There are two issues I want to speak about and the first is very short, as CAN has pointed out in the past, the status of fossil fuel subsidies should be reported as part of a country’s national communication in order to provide improved transparency on this issue.

Second CAN appreciates SBSTA's efforts to discuss agriculture. Clearly food production in many countries is threatened. Every human being depends on agriculture for his/her very sustenance; most of the rural poor in developing countries depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. Climate change puts all this at risk.

Agricultural sustainability and enhanced food security, now and in the future, are of critical importance while agricultural activities contribute a significant percentage of greenhouse gas emissions. Addressing these emissions will be critical if we are to achieve the UNFCCC goal of limiting the average global temperature to 1.5 or even 2°C.

Under the Convention, Parties have agreed to prevent dangerous climate change: so as to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

We recommend that developed countries must progress toward full and comprehensive accounting of the emissions associated with agricultural activities, including bioenergy production and use. For developing country agriculture the priority should be adaptation rather than mitigation. Parties must provide resources for transforming current unsustainable agricultural methods by promoting the development, demonstration, testing and implementation of biodiverse and resilient agriculture together with appropriate technology development and transfer.

Climate-related policies must include safeguards which protect and promote biodiversity, equitable access to resources, food security, the right to food and the rights of indigenous peoples and local populations, while promoting poverty reduction and climate adaptation.

Such policies should take into account recommendations from relevant international institutions.

If we fail in our efforts to progressively enable farmers to deal with climate change impacts we will see the complete destruction of rural livelihoods and food security in developing countries.

Thank you.

Tags:

Topics:

Organization:

Climate Action Network

Related Event:

Bonn Climate Change Conference 2012

Tag: bonn

Pages