Tag: copenhagen climate treaty

The Adaptation Fund (AF) is a self-standing fund established under the Kyoto Protocol in order to finance concrete adaptation projects in the most vulnerable countries. It has several unique and innovative features, including 'direct access', a new level of developing country participation, a new revenue source, and an equitable governance composition. These elements give the Fund the potential to contribute significantly to exploring new ways in international cooperation on adaptation.

The AF Board has also developed a transparent working mode and allows observers to publicly comment on project proposals before their adoption. Furthermore, the strategic priority that the particular needs of the most vulnerable communities and people should be given special attention is an important new step.

ECO has been closely following the development of the AF and recognises that establishing a proper framework for the AF Board has been quite an achievement. With the accreditation of the first National Implementing Entity, the Centre de Suivi Ecologique (CSE) from Senegal, the direct access modality became a reality. The recent call for project proposals by AF for funding through the AF marks the beginning of the long-awaited implementation phase.

It is remarkable that interventions in yesterday´s SBI plenary uniformly supported the Adaptation Fund, across both developing and developed countries. This is a clear sign of progress.  In addition, Spain’s contribution of 45 million and Germany´s pledge of 10 million euro to the AF will help set up the ground-breaking facility under the Kyoto Protocol.  Other developed countries ought to immediately follow this positive example of fast-start finance.

During the SBI session here, Parties will consider the Terms of Reference for the review of the Adaptation Fund. ECO considers that the review should be based on the positive development of the Fund, the importance of its innovative features and particularly its direct access pilot. The Fund is now just becoming fully operational, so some of the necessary lessons will not be fully captured in the next six months. But the review should in particular look at the following aspects:

* In order to play out its full potential, the resources for the Adaptation Fund have to be increased, and the review should consider how to raise those funds as soon as possible.

* The current set-up has improved significantly compared to early days, but the review should nevertheless address quality, cost-effectiveness and options for further improvement.

* The appropriate role of the AF in the broad finance architecture now being shaped must be discussed.

Overall, the review should seek to strengthen the Adaptation Fund's innovative features and help overcome operational barriers.

ECO has always called for “rules before targets” when it comes to land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF). We certainly don't want to repeat the mistakes of Kyoto, when LULUCF rules were negotiated specifically to allow countries to meet their emissions reduction targets, rather than to aid in climate change mitigation or adaptation.  In that light, it makes sense for the Chair of the AWG-KP to call for rules to be finalized.

While ECO applauds the push to finalize text here in Bonn, agreeing the current LULUCF proposal would be even worse than the status quo. The proposal currently tabled would frame rules that actually allow countries to increase emissions and not account for them. This will seriously undermine targets for Annex I countries before they are even finalised. We assume this isn’t what the Chair of the Kyoto Protocol really wants to see.  In fact, it contrasts rather dramatically with the approach being proposed for REDD, which starts from the assumption of emissions reductions from non-Annex I countries.

Forest management accounting rules on the table from Copenhagen allow countries to hide or ignore substantial increased emissions from forest management in their baselines. Around 400 MT annually could be released without being accounted for, equivalent to 5% of the total 1990 emissions of all Annex I parties, and a significant fraction of their proposed reductions post-2012.

Instead, what we need is a strong and unambiguous commitment to deliver emissions reductions and increases in removals in this sector, in the form of a goal in the LULUCF framework. We also need to see protection for existing forest carbon stocks. We urge all parties to consider the consequences of enshrining hidden emissions increases into a climate deal and to instead move rapidly to reduce emissions from land use, land use change and forestry.

ECO has always called for “rules before targets” when it comes to land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF). We certainly don't want to repeat the mistakes of Kyoto, when LULUCF rules were negotiated specifically to allow countries to meet their emissions reduction targets, rather than to aid in climate change mitigation or adaptation.  In that light, it makes sense for the Chair of the AWG-KP to call for rules to be finalized.

While ECO applauds the push to finalize text here in Bonn, agreeing the current LULUCF proposal would be even worse than the status quo. The proposal currently tabled would frame rules that actually allow countries to increase emissions and not account for them. This will seriously undermine targets for Annex I countries before they are even finalised. We assume this isn’t what the Chair of the Kyoto Protocol really wants to see.  In fact, it contrasts rather dramatically with the approach being proposed for REDD, which starts from the assumption of emissions reductions from non-Annex I countries.

Forest management accounting rules on the table from Copenhagen allow countries to hide or ignore substantial increased emissions from forest management in their baselines. Around 400 MT annually could be released without being accounted for, equivalent to 5% of the total 1990 emissions of all Annex I parties, and a significant fraction of their proposed reductions post-2012.

Instead, what we need is a strong and unambiguous commitment to deliver emissions reductions and increases in removals in this sector, in the form of a goal in the LULUCF framework. We also need to see protection for existing forest carbon stocks. We urge all parties to consider the consequences of enshrining hidden emissions increases into a climate deal and to instead move rapidly to reduce emissions from land use, land use change and forestry.

The choices leaders make this week will determine whether the world achieves a tipping point. A tipping point into a new era of cooperation and solidarity, or a disastrous tipping point in the climate system leading to direct conflict about the remaining environmental space.

The world demands nothing less than a Fair, Ambitious and Binding (FAB) deal. Three major gaps can and must be bridged in the remaining time: the gap between current emission reduction pledges and the science; the gap between the finances on the table and the need in developing countries; and – perhaps most critically – the gap between nations where trust must be forged. We clearly need a radical transformation.

ECO has written before about the “gigatonnes gap.” Put simply, the emission reductions currently on the table, from developed and developing countries, will fail to meet the challenge posed by the science. Independent experts ranging from Lord Stern to McKinsey for Project Catalyst and Ecofys/PIK, show that we are way off track for staying well below 2°C, not to mention 1.5°C, which the latest science and most vulnerable countries demand.

At the heart of the problem lie the industrialised country targets (particularly the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). So far, the industrialised countries’ targets are proving much more effective at capping ambition and innovation than they are at capping emissions. The picture gets even bleaker when the huge loopholes – notably “hot air” allowances and bogus LULUCF accounting – are taken into account. Under the current approach these would lock economies and the planet into a costly high carbon future and undermine a green new deal that could pave the way out of economic recession. They render mute any shared vision referring to keeping warming below 2°C. Without urgent triage, there is no prospect of a peak in global emissions before 2020. Without a radical departure in Copenhagen, the world risks staying the course for warming of at least 3°C, very likely 4°C or more – even the prospect of “Venus” conditions on Earth.

The second huge gap is the finance gap. Again, there is a crisis in ambition. The EU has put forward figures for long-term finance, but these fall far short of the need. Norway and Mexico have proposed a new green fund. But, collectively, developed countries have failed to quantify the scale or to commit to a specific contribution.

Closing these two gaps will be even more difficult without clear action to close the trust gap. In these complex negotiations, fear, mistrust and suspicion have come to rule – particularly between industrialised and developing countries. The reality of historic responsibility, the vast disparity in per capita emissions, the legitimate development needs of countries whose populations struggle with the crisis of poverty and the existential threat posed by climate change must be faced.

Without trust the discussion has persistently returned to legal architecture – drowning out discussion of substance. Each side is afraid to be taken advantage of by the other, prefering to debate who will be bound to what, instead of what they will do. Challenging times require creative solutions, demonstrating real action and sowing seeds for a new spirit of international cooperation.

The most obvious step that would change this dynamic is for the US to offer a more ambitious target and deliver on climate finance. Everybody in Copenhagen recognizes this as “the elephant in the room”, while understanding the challenging political situation the US administration finds itself in. The good news is: studies show the US can reduce its emissions by 18% below 1990 levels by 2020 – it’s probably easier than to go back to the moon.

Parties could embrace a large number of hard-edged practical measures that can wipe out gigatonnes to make a FAB deal. Here are some creative ideas to spur the transformation. Why not take: Action on a global feed-in tariff for renewable energy? Ambitious global standards to improve energy efficiency and drive forward clean technology? An accelerated phase-out of HFCs and other potent greenhouse gases in consumer products? A targeted fund to address non-CO₂ industrial greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries instead of relying on an expensive offset mechanism? Clear measures to strip out the hot air and LULUCF loopholes? New and concrete agreements on key technology IPRs, now?

There are similarly innovative ideas to plug the public finance gap and mobilise complementary private money to fuel the transformation. Decisions could be taken in Copenhagen to reduce emissions and raise money from international aviation and shipping or the auctioning of allowances. The USA recently proposed to the G20 to agree to redirect fossil fuel subsidies by 2020. George Soros last week here in Copenhagen suggested better utilising Special Drawing Rights. Some of these ideas may need more work, but without vision they will remain orphans.

As Lord Stern said: “If we assume people and politicians will be irretrievably short-sighted, quarrelsome and narrow in their judgment of their interests and act accordingly, then our pessimism will be self-fulfilling.” Now is the time for politicians to show that such an assumption is unfounded. Fight for the FAB deal!

The attention of the world will focus on Copenhagen over the next two weeks, and eagerly awaits the outcomes of this conference. As we come together at this defining moment in time, the Climate Action Network (CAN) presents the essentials for a successful climate deal.

It has to be FAB – Fair, Ambitious and Binding.

In effect, the agreement which comes out of Copenhagen must safeguard the climate and must be fair to all countries. Specifically, it must include the following commitments.

• Keep warming well below 2°C

o Reducing greenhouse gas concentrations ultimately to 350ppm carbon dioxide-equivalent.

o Peaking emissions within the 2013-2017 commitment period and rapidly declining emissions by at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

o Achieving this in a way that fully reflects the historic and current contributions of developed countries to climate change and the right of developing countries to sustainable development.

• Industrialised countries as a group must take a target of more than 40% below 1990 levels by 2020

o Reductions for individual countries should be assigned based on historic and present responsibility for emissions as well as current capacity to reduce emissions.

o The use of offsets must be limited. As long as developed country targets fall short of ensuring that domestic emissions are reduced by at least 30% below 1990 levels by 2020, there is no room – or indeed need – for offsets.

o Accounting for emissions and removals from Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) must be based on what the atmosphere sees.

o Major sources of emissions must be accounted for, for example forest and peatland degradation.

o LULUCF credits must not undermine or substitute for the significant investments and efforts required to reduce fossil fuel emissions.

• Developing countries must be supported in their efforts to limit the growth of their industrial emissions, making substantial reductions below business-as-usual
• Emissions from deforestation and degradation must be reduced to zero by 2020, funded by at least US$35 billion per year from developed countries
• Developed countries need to provide at least US$195 billion in public financing per year by 2020, in addition to ODA commitments, for developing country actions

o At least US$95 billion per year for low emissions development, halting deforestation, agriculture, and technology research and development in developing countries.

o At least US$100 billion per year in grants for adaptation in developing countries, including an international climate insurance pool.

• Double counting must be avoided

o Offsets, purchased by an industrialised country from developing countries to help meet the industrialised country’s emissions reduction goal cannot be counted as also helping the developing country to meet its emissions reduction goal.

o Payments for offsets should not be double counted. At least US$195 billion in public financing is required to support developing countries in reducing their emissions to the level demanded by science, and payments for offsets must not contribute towards this minimum public financing.

• An Adaptation Action Framework that immediately and massively scales up predictable and reliable support to developing countries to adapt to the impacts of climate change
• Copenhagen outcomes must be legally binding and enforceable

o Until the international community agrees to a system that provides better environmental outcomes, a stronger compliance mechanism, and has widespread support, the Kyoto Protocol should continue with a second commitment period.

o A complementary agreement should provide emission reduction commitments by the US comparable to other developed countries, incorporate financial commitments, and cover developing country action.

Clear and shared vision

All eyes will be on the Shared Vision text as CoP15 kicks off today. It is a key barometer for the talks as a whole and a highly effective way for those outside the Bella Center to gauge the top-line issues under discussion. Just a few days ago, the Everest Declaration issued by the Prime Minister of Nepal and his Cabinet, was a resounding endorsement of many existing principles within the shared vision proposals. ECO hopes that the same clarity and ambition found in the low-oxygen climes of Everest will inspire us here in the cold temperatures of Copenhagen.

If we think we are chilled, bundled up in scarves and sweaters on the streets of Copenhagen, the Cabinet of Nepal comprising 24 ministers, just returned from a high peak in the Himalayas, which we hope stays freezing cold for years to come. These ministers drafted the Everest Declaration in order to highlight what needs to be done to protect the vulnerable Himalayan region. As the Himalayas is a major source of drinking water and other ecosystem services for 1.3 billion people in the region, the impacts of climate change pose tremendous risks to these people.

The Everest Declaration contains many provisions found within the negotiating text for Shared Vision. It serves as an excellent reminder of the high stakes of reaching agreement based upon sound science and principles of equity. Some of the core principles of this declaration include reducing carbon emission to 350 parts per million, a plea to developed nations to fund the fight against climate change, and an entreaty to pay 1,5% of developed nations’ GDP to developing nations like Nepal for the ‘green cause.’

Other elements essential to the Shared Vision include regular scientific review; common but differentiated responsibility between developed and developing countries; recognition of human rights responsibilities – inclusive, active and meaningful participation of all stakeholders – and environmental integrity.