Tag: bonn

Stressed negotiators hurrying into today's adaptation focused LCA contact group need not worry if they have arrived somewhat unprepared.  ECO is pleased to provide the four answers that have the potential to make a difference. On response measures (Q1), this question should be considered off-topic because the Bali Action Plan (adopted even by 'Friends of Response Measures') clearly gave the response measures a home under the pillar of mitigation. In any case, seeking compensation for reduced oil sales is holding the millions of people hostage who are suffering from climate change and in dire need of adequate support to cope with its adverse effects. On institutional arrangements (Q2), here's a summary, really just a soundbite, on the adaptation framework.  It should facilitate and ensure the provision of financial support by developed to developing countries. It would not organise funding disbursement; however, the adaptation committee would recommend further action to the COP if insufficient funding undermines the scale of support required under the adaptation framework. It would do so by linking up with the Kyoto Adaptation Fund Board as well as other proposed institutions tasked with finance disbursement such as the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund. On loss and damage (Q3), Annex I Parties should answer this question: What would you do if your country, its lands and the livelihoods of your people were becoming untenable or even starting to disappear under water or sand.  How would you face damages so substantial they are beyond your ability to adapt?  Parties should set up the international mechanism to address unavoidable loss and damage from climate change, through risk reduction and management, insurance and rehabilitation – against internationally established baselines -- adaptation is no longer possible. In Cancún, Parties should establish such a mechanism and operationalise at least the insurance component, while agreeing to launch the rehabilitation component at COP17, using the year in between to study and develop its modalities. On matching adaptation with support (Q4), our longstanding view is that developing countries should receive regular flows of grant finance through the financial mechanism and its operating entities in support of adaptation efforts. Needs and priorities should be identified through in-country, transparent and participatory adaptation planning, implementation and evaluation. Adaptation strategies can be disseminated consistently at the international level to support the continuous influx of finance, but there is no need for an 'adaptation registry'.

Amidst the many vital matters being discussed in the LCA, there are two key ideas already enshrined in the current text -- zero carbon action plans (ZCAPs) for all developed country parties, and low carbon action plans (LCAPs) for developing countries (except the most vulnerable countries). By agreeing to begin planning their pathways to complete decarbonization, developed countries can demonstrate that they have the policies and measures in place to meet their emission reduction commitments and the long term vision for decarbonizing their economies by 2050. LCAPs will provide developing countries the opportunity to plan for sustainable low-carbon development, showcasing their efforts and providing clarity on which actions are counted as domestic, carbon market and CDM respectively, to avoid double counting.  An elaboration of proposed actions requiring support would also help to match these actions with funding, capacity building and technology from developed countries.  And it should be strongly stated that without support from developed countries in the first place, low carbon planning will be impossible for developing countries. ECO applauds the Chair for including low and zero carbon development in the discussion text, and encourages delegates to show their support

With all the talk of finance gaps and gigatonne gaps, there has been much more progress in closing the climate-education-and-awareness gap.  Now there is an opportunity to go even further in the SBI. The New Delhi Work Programme adopted at COP 8 under Article 6 of the Convention comprises a promising set of commitments. The pillars of education, public participation and awareness-raising help to combat an atmosphere of climate denial and skepticism. Without a critical mass of public understanding and support to address the threats of climate change and the opportunities of clean energy development, the gap between the negotiations today and a fair ambitious, and binding global deal could become a chasm. The upcoming mid-term review of the New Delhi programme is a unique chance to build bridges between governments and citizens. That will only happen if civil society has the opportunity to fully contribute to the review along with Parties. This can best be realized by amending the New Delhi Work Programme to extend beyond 2012 and strengthen it to provide more local and regional climate education. Elements required include creating financial mechanisms specifically to fund Article 6 activities, recognizing and supporting youth organizations as key providers of non-formal and peer education, and supporting the diversity of forms that public awareness building can take, including arts, entertainment and both 'online' and 'real-life' social networks. The SBI should call for civil society as well as Party submissions on the review of the New Delhi Work Programme. Similarly, the Secretariat should receive a broad mandate to conduct its review of the work programme with as much civil society participation as possible. Parties should also provide the financial means to enable the Secretariat to organize regional workshops on the implementation of Article 6 in the SIDS and Africa. Previous workshops have been invaluable in communicating the objectives of Article 6. These regions deserve that resource, too. Because it is less controversial of a gap to cross than finance or emissions commitments, it should be easy for Parties to agree on filling voids in climate awareness as a step toward bigger things.

And now we’re all here again, what is it that needs to be accomplished?

Clearly, on the KP track lamentably little progress has bee made over the past four years. ECO suggests that the following issues must be agreed this year, as a priority:

• LULUCF accounting rules – Annex I countries must stop trying to hide emissions from forest management and commit to reduce them instead.
• CDM/JI/emissions trading modalities – These must be revamped to avoid double counting of mitigation and financial support obligations, and to keep inappropriate sectors, such as nuclear and CCS, out of the CDM.
• New sources and sectors and other accounting rules around them (the “other issues”) should include new gases to the extent that is technically possible, and use the new IPCC AR4 global warming potential (GWP) measures over the 100 year timescale.
• The commitment period length, base year and the other modalities that will define the calculation of the quantified emission reduction obligation (QERO) and assigned amount from country pledges (here's a free hint! correct answers for the first two are: 5 years, 1990).

When the KP was first negotiated, Parties agreed targets first, and the following years turned into excruciating negotiation exercises that ended up agreeing a series of loopholes. ECO has long maintained that the rules should be negotiated first, so that the science-indicated reduction target of at least 40% on 1990 levels by 2020 can be fairly shared between the Annex B Parties.

For this reason, negotiating time in Bonn and for the intersessionals should be concentrated on clearing these issues, so that the targets and then the discussion on QEROs can be resolved rationally and equitably, based on a clear and common understanding of the underlying scope and rules of accounting. In the short term, then, negotiating time should be concentrated on resolving the issues listed above.

In the LCA track, a balanced agreement is needed by Cancún, with each of the Bali Action Plan building blocks being addressed. In Copenhagen, the LCA negotiating texts on adaptation, technology and REDD+ were well advanced, and agreement should be possible on these issues this year. Additionally, finance, MRV and low carbon development plans should be among the agreements reached this year.

Adaptation

Most Parties seem to agree that progress can be made in Bonn on the design of an adaptation framework for implementation. However, developed countries should stop resisting a firm institutional link that ensures the provision of regular, reliable and truly additional grant-based finance needed to make this framework a real implementation action tool.

Bonn II could also achieve greater clarity on the enhancement, establishment, composition and role of regional centres and initiatives as well as the proposed establishment of an adaptation committee. Another issue that must advance is how to address unavoidable loss and damage from climate change impacts when adaptation is not longer a viable option, e.g., when water resources disappear due to shrinking glaciers and livelihoods become untenable. Progress in Bonn would be achieved if Parties clearly recognise the need for an international mechanism to address loss and damage, and identify key substantive issues to be addressed in subsequent sessions.

Technology

Technology negotiations have progressed enough that areas of clear convergence can be identified, especially regarding the establishment of a technology mechanism. More clarity is required to ensure that it operates within UNFCCC authority and principles. Other areas to be further clarified are the role of regional innovation centres, as well as criteria for MRV for technology support and actions that may take place outside the UNFCCC mechanism. Negotiators should be willing to show more flexibility regarding intellectual property issues, acknowledging the valid concerns of all parties, while focusing on a solution that will preserve incentives for innovation and ensure and expand production of, and access to, climate technologies for mitigation and adaptation.

REDD+

While ECO understands and agrees that reliable and adequate long-term funding is essential, goals for REDD and the conservation and enhancement of carbon stocks remain essential. There should also be a finance goal for support, either a specific range – a number of studies have indicated that halving emissions by 2020 would cost $15-35 billion in 2020 – or simply an agreement to finance achievement of the carbon-related goals. It is crucial to move on this now given the speed of REDD negotiations and the launch of the REDD+ partnership for fast-start financing last week.

Successful mitigation outcomes from REDD+ activities by developing countries,  supported by developed countries, depends on using improved methodological guidance for estimating emissions by sources and removals by sinks. SBSTA needs to progress this issue.

Climate integrity is not the only concern for REDD+ activities; safeguards not only need to be agreed, but the LCA text needs to operationalize them.

Finance

Climate finance can be a valuable opportunity to build some momentum in a process that needs a shot in the arm. Here in Bonn, parties should set ambitious goals for finance outcomes in Cancún, whether or not a comprehensive deal is agreed by then. To be more precise, by Cancún parties can finalize decisions covering finance MRV, governance and institution, and make substantial progress on operationalizing sources of finance to mobilize funding at the scale needed.

But it must be decided here in Bonn to achieve this by Cancún, and that means a negotiating text must be developed that will result in this outcome. ECO gives fair warning: for any parties thinking of blocking progress on finance because they didn’t get what they want in other areas, it's time to open eyes to the bright light of negotiating reality.

MRV

ECO recognizes the crucial role of gathering, in a consistent and comparable way, accurate information relating to emission reduction activities undertaken by Parties, as well as the support provided. Indeed, this is central to the integrity of the climate regime. Thus, it is vital to continue discussions on the nature of MRV, in particular its scope and architecture, that is tailored to Parties’ differentiated obligations.  In so doing, Parties should agree a process at this meeting to elaborate the main issues associated with MRV. Additionally, Parties should give the Chair a mandate to develop text on MRV for this and future negotiations. Parties should also consider how to provide capacity building and support to construct and maintain domestic reporting and verification systems in non-Annex I countries.

Zero- and Low-Carbon Action Plans

As part of the essential process to build trust among Parties through transparency of action, ECO would like to highlight the need to agree by Cancún that both developed and developing countries (with optional participation by LDCs and SIDS) will produce national plans showing how developed countries can get their emissions to near-zero by 2050, and how developing countries can reduce their emissions -- with support from developed countries as defined and agreed previously, including the Convention and the Bali Action Plan -- in line with the required overall global carbon budget.

Time for action is so short, there is no time to lose, and actions are needed now in line with the scientific imperative. There is much that can progress at the multilateral level this year. In Bonn, Parties must build upon progress in the LCA and KP tracks to date and define the expectations for a balanced and ambitious outcome in Cancún.

#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#

Developed countries should produce Zero Carbon Action Plans (ZCAPs) to map out the institutions and policies needed for them to achieve their targets under a five-year commitment period, with the longer-term aim of near-total decarbonization by 2050.  ZCAPs would also serve to document how each country proposes to achieve their support obligations to developing countries.  Both parts of the ZCAP would be subject to MRV procedures to help ensure the environmental integrity of the deal and also to give all countries increased confidence that others will not free-ride.  The long-term component allows countries to begin to develop a long-term vision for their economies and to plan for related socioeconomic transition. The reporting, review and compliance components of the ZCAP proposal are therefore essential to the integrity of the overall deal and giving confidence that targets will be met.

Developing countries, over the short to medium run and depending on capacity, will produce visionary low-carbon action plans (LCAPs) that provide a road map and outline a trajectory for their pathway to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy, clearly linking development and climate goals to achieve sustainable development.  These plans should be developed through a bottom-up, country-driven process and should build upon national plans for adaptation and mitigation, recognizing the linkages already in place in many countries between these issues.  They should provide an integrated framework where a country's NAMAs can form a coherent package.  These NAMAs would then form essential building blocks of a LCAP, and together their cumulative impact should result in the long-term objective of a low-carbon economy as well as stay within atmospheric limitations.  Mitigation efforts together with adaptation all contribute towards the overall LCAP.

ZCAPs and LCAPs link to a number of existing agenda items.  They are in the LCA text and are also relevant in the MRV discussions (MRV mitigation on non-Annex I, Annex I, the “firewall” between them, and MRV finance).  Because ECO sees them as being related to national communications, but forward- rather than backward-looking, SBI agenda items 3 and 4 (national communications for developed and developing countries) are also relevant.