Tag: climate change

CAN Intervention - AWG Opening - December 3rd 2007

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.

Region: 
Related Event: 

Progressing the Nairobi Work Programme

Let’s face it, there hasn’t been that much progress here in Bonn to address the climate challenge. So ECO wants to share some thoughts about the Nairobi Work Programme (NWP).

The NWP was set up by decision 2/CP.11 to support all Parties in addressing vulnerability and impacts of climate change and adaptation. It was established as a 5-year programme and is due to end at COP 16. Through a succession of workshops involving Parties and observers – including NGOs – the NWP has created an open forum where information and experiences are shared in a cooperative manner across nine broad themes encompassing the whole range of adaptation needs. It has provided opportunities where observers can meet informally with Parties to discuss different approaches to similar challenges. Through an informal system of pledges, many different stakeholders have committed voluntarily to sharing knowledge and contributing in practical ways to capacity building. So it is not surprising that Parties are recommending to the COP to continue the NWP beyond Cancún. ECO also supports continuation of the NWP – it is one of the few activities under the UNFCCC that has actually made progress in building capacity to address the impacts of climate change. However, even a good thing can always be improved. 

The NWP has synthesised a lot of information and made it available to Parties and observers, but it still has some gaps to be filled. Here are some issues that the NWP should address in the next phase.  Has the programme had an impact on those most affected by climate change – the vulnerable communities in the LDCs and SIDS? How could the NWP be enhanced to meet their needs? How can a wider range of stakeholders, including indigenous peoples, be engaged to share their knowledge?

In a spirit of participation, there will be an informal meeting including observers, and an opportunity for all stakeholders to make submissions to the Secretariat, to collect views on the performance of and future scope of the NWP. ECO recommends that Parties engage more in the NWP and fully recognize its lessons not just on adaptation but also on cooperation in other areas of work under the UNFCCC.

Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

Loss, Damage and Survival

The failure of industrialized countries to reduce emissions and provide support for adaptation  means that some countries on the frontline of climate change are facing unavoidable impacts on their economy and for some, their survival as nations. In the face of this threat, small island states and other developing countries have tabled a loss and damage mechanism in the adaptation negotiations. Disliking certain elements of the proposed mechanism, the pre-Copenhagen strategy of quite a few developed countries was to kill the issue by not talking about it at all. Ignoring the issue is not an option: it will not go away. In picking up the pieces from Copenhagen, parties should bring creative thinking on how to help people and countries when sea levels rise, lands disappear under water and deserts spread. ECO applauds the Chair for putting Annex I countries on the spot by posing questions on this issue. However, the answers given by Australia, Japan and others show that Annex I has still not grasped the rapidly growing importance of this issue. Strengthening existing initiatives on risk reduction and insurance is a good start but will not be adequate by themselves.  A scale shift in global commitment and new mechanisms will be required to address the impacts both of extreme weather events and the more slowly emerging disasters of disappearing coastlines. A vital action ingredient is for Parties to acknowledge the consequences of unavoidable impacts. If most of 
London, for example, were just 1 meter above sea level (instead of a posted average of 24 m), would Annex I be more engaged?

Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

Fossil of the Day - 5 June 2010

FOSSIL OF THE DAY AWARDS
Bonn, Germany, June 5, 2010
The Climate Action Network (CAN), a coalition of over 500 NGOs worldwide, gives out  'Fossil of The Day' awards to the countries who perform the worst during the past day's negotiations at the UN climate change conference.
The awards given out on June 5, 2010 in Bonn, Germany were as follows:
The United States of America was awarded First Place. The U.S. earns the Fossil of the Day for blocking the common space discussion on mitigation in the Ad Hoc Working Group for Long-term Cooperative Action yesterday. Failing to pass a strong climate and energy bill is keeping them from participating in cross-cutting discussions, like the one AOSIS proposed, to build a post-2012 agreement to reduce global warming emissions.
About the fossils:
The Fossil-of-the-day awards were first presented at the climate talks in 1999, also in Bonn, initiated by the German NGO Forum.
During United Nations climate change negotiations (www.unfccc.int), members of the Climate Action Network (CAN), a worldwide network of over 500 non-governmental organisations, vote for  countries judged to have done their 'best' to block progress in the negotiations in the last days of talks.

FOSSIL OF THE DAY AWARDS

Bonn, Germany, June 5, 2010

The Climate Action Network (CAN), a coalition of over 500 NGOs worldwide, gives out  'Fossil of The Day' awards to the countries who perform the worst during the past day's negotiations at the UN climate change conference.

The awards given out on June 5, 2010 in Bonn, Germany were as follows:

The United States of America was awarded First Place. The U.S. earns the Fossil of the Day for blocking the common space discussion on mitigation in the Ad Hoc Working Group for Long-term Cooperative Action yesterday. Failing to pass a strong climate and energy bill is keeping them from participating in cross-cutting discussions, like the one AOSIS proposed, to build a post-2012 agreement to reduce global warming emissions.

Video:

Fossil of the Day - June 5, 2010 from Sébastien Duyck on Vimeo.

Bangladesh Launches Climate Change Resilient Fund

Bangladesh signed an agreement to set up a Climate Resilient Fund with the UK, Sweden, Denmark and the EU at a ceremony featuring Dr. Hasan Mahmud, State minister, Ministry of Environment and Forest, and ambassadors from the contributing countries in Dhaka on 31 May. Connie Hedegaard, EU Commissioner for Climate Action was also present. The total amounts initially pledged are over $100 million which will be used to implement the Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (which includes both adaptation and mitigation actions). 'This is a pathbreaking example for an innovative new approach in national climate action,' said Dr. Saleemul Huq, senior fellow of the International Institute for Environment and Development.  'This is a developing country taking the lead on national climate action with coordinated support from other countries, and showcases a new paradigm based on transparency for both donor countries and citizens'. The Climate Resilient Fund will consist of contributions from developed countries and supplement the $100 million already allocated in Bangladesh's national budget for implementing its Climate Change Strategy.

Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

Fast Start Needed for 1,5 Review

Earlier this week during a SBSTA contact group, a group of countries particularly vulnerable to climate change requested a workshop and technical report by Cancun on the costs and opportunities of mitigation to limit global temperature rise to below 1.5 o C. The report could draw on recent scientific studies in advance of forthcoming IPCC scenarios, and equip Parties with an early look well ahead of 2015 at the options available when they deliberate the long-term temperature goal under the LCA. Since many governments with a view to adopting 1.5o C as the long-term goal agreed the Copenhagen Accord in part because of the promised review of 1.5 by 2015, there should be a lot of support for getting the ball rolling. Perhaps not to our surprise, however, there are quite few a developed countries coming up with all sorts of excuses why such a report can or should not be done by Cancun – we don’t have enough time, the UNFCCC can't do this, it is in the wrong agenda item, etc. But ECO has to ask this: Why would parties raise excuses against assessing the most recent scientific research? Could such a report present some inconvenient truths? The UNFCCC cannot be serious about a long-term goal unless it is informed about the underlying science and all the resulting options.  A study on actions associated with limiting temperature rise to 1.5 o C would be well in line with the precautionary principle under the Convention.  But therein lies the problem -- that would involve Parties agreeing to align ongoing deliberations more firmly with the principles of the Convention, which has been a bit of a challenge lately.  We eagerly await the draft conclusions from the SBSTA contact group on Agenda Item 9, and for evidence that vulnerable countries' pleas wont fall on deaf ears again.

Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

LCA Finance Comes Alive

After a unexciting first couple of days, today out of the blue in the LCA contact group on finance, delegates picked up the pace. It was a pleasure to see negotiators giving thoughtful and creative responses to the Chair's questions and to each other's proposals. The Chair chose wisely in selecting finance, which underpins progress on many other areas, for the first deep engagement with the new negotiating text. Parties responded by presenting new ideas and arguments on the complex linkages between institutions as well as the need for effectiveness and accountability to the UNFCCC and its governing bodies. There is a clear consensus about the establishment of a new fund, and some new and creative thinking about how an overarching Finance Board could provide an oversight or coordinating function. But no institutional framework for financing can be effective without sufficient funding. To ensure rapid progress on scaling up finance, the LCA must also continue its discussion of sources, in parallel with the discussions under the Advisory Group on Climate Finance (AGF), which is holding a workshop on Saturday to report on progress and receive input. The AGF has an opportunity to make rapid progress on identifying sources of funding for climate actions in developing countries. However, the LCA cannot just wait until the AGF presents its final report in November to take up the issue of sources, if it hopes to move from analysis to action this year. Parties should start actively discussing sources of public funds in the LCA now, and incorporate and build on the analyses and recommendations of the AGF, starting with the interim report expected in July. Avenues to explore include new and innovative sources of public finance, including bunkers mechanisms, financial transaction taxes (FTTs), Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) and international auctioning of AAUs. Then in Cancun, the LCA can be in a position to adopt substantial decisions and provide clear guidance for the work of the UNFCCC and other bodies in the coming year. This can lead to adoption of a comprehensive set of decisions on financing sources and institutions as part of an ambitious comprehensive agreement in Cancun.  All this is possible if leaders have the political will; but short of that, Parties can agree a more modest but still ambitious package of decisions to demonstrate the viability of the UNFCCC process and support the scaling up of mitigation and adaptation actions on the ground.

Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

Shared Vision Must Be Clear Vision

As parties walk into the LCA contact group on Shared Vision this morning, ECO will be thinking ahead to a final destination does not yet look clear. Nearly all Parties agree to a global goal of staying below 2o C, and even so, more than 100 parties call for stabilizing temperature rise at well below 1.5o C compared to pre-industrial levels.   But the current path Parties are taking us towards is a close to a 4o path. So we hope the contact group proceeds with the right motivation and a visionary mindset. The Shared Vision discussions can help avoid the 4o path only if parties engage in a constructive and trust-building dialogue today that will advance the text in substance, move towards convergence of views and provide clarity to both.

Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

EU starts fast, but...

ECO is eagerly awaiting today’s side event at which the EU will present its preliminary report on its fast start finance pledge. Not because the report itself will bring any new information to light -- it was leaked to the press weeks ago -- but to see EU negotiators try to answer the question on the lips of NGOs and developing country negotiators everywhere . . . how exactly is EU fast start finance 'new and additional'? Other developed countries might like to attend and pick up some tips. The EU had the right idea in suggesting a report on whether they were keeping their promises. This might help make up for the fact that most EU Member States have done a pretty good job over the years at breaking long-standing promises to provide finance to poor countries, whether as aid or climate finance under the UNFCCC. The Spanish Presidency started well, collecting information on Member State pledges, but then a problem arose. The EU's commitment first made in Brussels at the December leaders’ summit did not address whether the promises they were making were “new and additional” as required by the Copenhagen Accord.  It is clear that this means over and above the target to provide at least 0.7% gross national income (GNI) in official development assistance (ODA). Climate change imposes new costs on developing countries, so new money is needed to tackle it. Instead of owning up to relabeling old some ODA pledges and then adding them to the new fast-start climate finance total, EU governments thought it best to keep quiet and hope no one noticed . . . but some did.  Failing to ensure that climate finance is new and additional to existing ODA targets takes money that would otherwise have been available for spending on schools and hospitals in developing countries, to name one example. And that at a time when budgets for essential services are already being cut in the face of economic downturn.  And we won't mention more than just this once that most countries aren't even achieving their longstanding ODA pledges. All that said, ECO welcomes the EU’s readiness to face the music in today’s side event. We hope they come clean about recycling past promises and are ready to answer questions on the scale of money going to different countries, and will detail how it will flow through bilateral and multilateral channels, as grants and loans, and for adaptation and mitigation. This is just a preliminary report, and the EU will have another chance to get it right in the annual report due at COP 16. But to provide genuine transparency, and to ensure that the US and other rich countries are held accountable too, they should seek a common reporting framework. The Secretariat could be asked to take that on and add meat to the EU’s bare bones.

Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

Pages

Subscribe to Tag: climate change