Tag: India

Fossil of the Day – Nov 21

The First Place Fossil goes to India for continuing to be a spoiler on equity at the ADP sessions. The previous fossil to India was for their push to get the only mention of equity in the text to be deleted. At yesterday’s late night ADP session, India once again spoke against equity opposing South Africa’s proposal on the Equity Reference Framework and wanting to cancel the workshop on equity at the upcoming ADP session in Bonn. We certainly expect more from a Party that showed promise of being an equity champion just two years ago in Durban, saying they could not see a future deal without equity embedded in it.

Related Newsletter : 

As Warsaw starts countdown to the last hours, India earns a Fossil for continuing to block on Equity

Photo: David Tong, Adopt A Negotiator

The first place fossil goes to India for continuing to be a spoiled sport on equity at the ADP sessions. The previous fossil to India was for their push to get the only mention of equity in the text to be deleted. At yesterday’s late night ADP session, India once again spoke against equity opposing South Africa’s proposal on the Equity Reference Framework and wanting to cancel the workshop on equity at the upcoming ADP session in Bonn. CAN certainly expects more from a party that showed promise of being an equity champion just two years ago in Durban, saying they could not see a future deal without equity embedded in it.

Plans to Axe Warsaw’s Only Fair Share Mention Gets Fossil for Five Countries, while Australia’s Schoolboy Antics Get a Fifth Gong

Fossil of the Day, COP19, Warsaw, 20 11 2013


Credit: David Tong, Adopt A Negotiator

The first place fossil goes to India, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Malaysia, and China for proposing to delete the only reference to equity in the ADP text!  (And for the wonks, we mean paragraph 9 in the ADP text).  Equity is key to the 2015 agreement and Parties must leave Warsaw with a clear understanding of how the ex ante review will be conducted. This includes – at a minimum - details on submissions, expert workshops, and the development of a technical paper on a basket of indicators covering: adequacy, historical responsibility, capability, and development and adaptation need).  Details that are really hard to achieve if you just delete the whole paragraph.  We were shocked that with all the discussions here and in Bonn, equity did not yield more than a passing reference in the first version of the ADP text.  The next iteration must expand and not ‘streamline’ references to equity.  To these members of the Like-Minded Group, we urge you to engage in the development of an ex ante review, rather than hovering over the delete button.

The second place in today’s fossil goes to Australia, who along with some other developed countries is impeding progress towards setting up an international mechanism on loss and damage here in Warsaw, as proposed by G77 and China. Trying to keep out key text elements proposed by more than 130 developing countries (such as on non-economic losses and permanent losses), delaying negotiation progress through procedural manoeuvres, and lacking a clear commitment to strong support provisions in the decision text is highly concerning.  Australia is the leader of those lacking constructive spirit.
 
We call on the other developed countries to work seriously for the needs of the most vulnerable countries and help in establishing an effective international mechanism on loss and damage here in Warsaw.

Region: 

Taking Leadership

The legal options discussion has come up with at least one that ECO approves. Option 1 decides to develop a Protocol or other legally binding instrument under the Convention based on the Bali Action Plan and the Cancun Agreements, with negotiations starting in 2012 and in place by 2015. Excellent!

However, the rumour is that the US, India and China have opposed it. ECO shares India and China’s love of the Kyoto Protocol and their devotion to a second commitment period, but is dismayed by the potential rejection of the lovely Option 1.

ECO has long considered itself soulmates with India and China – based on mutual deep respect for a rules-based system with common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. If those Parties are really serious about a binding second commitment period they should also constructively engage to ensure a mandate at Durban that will build on the second commitment period.

Rather than taking a rigid stance in the legal group, India and China should move in line with the press comments they have made stating they are receptive to new ideas and looking at solutions with an open mind.

Of course, responsibilities should be based on equity and CBDR+RC as embedded in the Convention. Rather than being a basis for obstructing progress, however, this should be the basis to work towards a legal outcome. It is imperative that all Parties should extend their views beyond the short term for the sake of the planet.

Topics: 
Region: 
Related Newsletter : 

Fossil of the Day Awards - Bonn - June 14, 2011: India Earns First place (and only) Fossil of the Day

       
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                  14 June 2011
Contact:
Kyle Gracey
kylegracey@gmail.com
+1 814 659 2405


India Earns First place (and only) Fossil of the Day

Bonn, Germany – Alone among countries shamed for doing the most to block
progress in the United Nations climate negotiations today, India earned the first and
only place Fossil for supporting nuclear power as a “clean” option
under the UN's
Clean Development Mechanism, 3 months and 3 days after the Fukushima crisis.

The Fossil as presented read:

“The first place fossil goes to India for supporting the inclusion of nuclear energy in
the Clean Development Mechanism in Monday's AWG-KP mechanism spin-off
group. In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, we don't understand why
anyone would want to go down that expensive and dangerous path when other
options, such as renewables, are available. The CDM is supposed to support
sustainable development, so let's develop safely, sustainably and in a climate-friendly
way.”
_____________________________________________________________________
About CAN: The Climate Action Network is a worldwide network of roughly 500
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working to promote government and
individual action to limit human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable
levels. www.climatenetwork.org

About the fossils: The Fossil of the Day awards were first presented at the climate
talks in 1999  in Bonn, initiated by the German NGO Forum. During United Nations
climate change negotiations (www.unfccc.int), members of the Climate Action
Network (CAN), vote for countries judged to have done their 'best' to block progress
in the negotiations in the last days of talks.

###

Region: 

India Earns First place (and only) Fossil of the Day

                                                            14 June 2011

Bonn, Germany – Alone among countries shamed for doing the most to block
progress in the United Nations climate negotiations today, India earned the first and
only place Fossil for supporting nuclear power as a “clean” option under the UN's
Clean Development Mechanism, 3 months and 3 days after the Fukushima crisis.


The Fossil as presented read:


“The first place fossil goes to India for supporting the inclusion of nuclear energy in
the Clean Development Mechanism in Monday's AWG-KP mechanism spin-off
group. In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, we don't understand why
anyone would want to go down that expensive and dangerous path when other
options, such as renewables, are available. The CDM is supposed to support
sustainable development, so let's develop safely, sustainably and in a climate-friendly
way.”
_____________________________________________________________________
About CAN: The Climate Action Network is a worldwide network of roughly 500
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working to promote government and
individual action to limit human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable
levels. www.climatenetwork.org
About the fossils: The Fossil of the Day awards were first presented at the climate
talks in 1999  in Bonn, initiated by the German NGO Forum. During United Nations
climate change negotiations (www.unfccc.int), members of the Climate Action
Network (CAN), vote for countries judged to have done their 'best' to block progress
in the negotiations in the last days of talks.

###

Region: 

Basic countries NGOs are bringing a new perspective to cooperation on Climate Change

With the progress made in last two meetings in Bonn and Tianjin, NGOs in BASIC countries move forward beyond experience sharing and begin to discuss how do we see each other and how to build collaboration in coming future.

The first step is to identify what are the common challenges and differences we are facing now. And we do find many things in common. All these countries are emerging economies with remarkable divisions between the rich and the poor and rapid urban expansion, which has a huge and growing need for energy, often fossil-fuel based. Climate change is a common environment issue in these countries, while pollution, deforestation as well as other local environment challenges should also be deal with. Economic growth looks more important to governments than climate protection, none of these countries have a strong climate movement to face this problems and everyday more communication is needed on Climate Change with public. Beside these commonalities, these countries still have lots of differences, especially in politic system, economic structure as well as the relationship between government and civil society.

We believe that both commonalities and differences can be beneficial for future cooperation. About the future, we all agree that information sharing for good practices such as local actions addressing mitigation and adaptation actions is very important.

We really hope that with a regular communication mechanism, the cooperation among basic countries could bring a very different perspective from former international NGO cooperation and will enhance the global civil movement in addressing climate change

Region: 

Walking the KP Talk

 

ECO often chastises parties for too much talk and not enough action. However, yesterday’s vexed AWG-KP contact group on legal matters showed that sometimes refusing to talk blocks forward progress. If we are ever going to secure a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol – the only legally binding targets and timetables within reach – countries will need to talk about the legal steps to get there.

Therefore, we just don’t understand the refusal of the African Group, Bolivia, Brazil, China, India and Saudi Arabia to discuss legal matters in the KP (well, we do understand the Saudis and we simply don’t agree). Such inflexibility makes a second KP commitment period that much harder to secure.  

ECO has heard many developing countries say they don’t want to kill the KP, and we surely want it to live too.  In fact, lessons from the first commitment period ought to be reflected in amendments that make it even stronger.  Inserting numbers in an Annex is crucial, but should not be the totality of the discussion.  Let the legal talks and ambitious emission cuts begin!

Region: 
Related Newsletter : 

Some Progress: More Action Needed

ECO was excited to see streamlined adaptation text emerging over the weekend, with content on almost all fundamental points. In addition, the Co-Chairs expect to have a shorter text by the end of the week.

Based on the contact group discussions, there is convergence between Parties on “practical delivery” but divergence on some vital areas. These include scale of finance for adaptation, additionality of finance to existing overseas development assistance (ODA) targets, a rights-based approach, and vulnerability and prioritisation for support.


ECO however is troubled by response measures.

These cannot be part of the adaptation component as response measures are not about adapting to climate change but about the spillover effects of measures to mitigate climate change.

It is also worrying that the focus of Annex I countries is on planning and delivery for adaptation. Non-Annex I countries have clearly articulated in session after session that the greater focus should be on action on adaptation.

The text on adaptation for Copenhagen must incorporate six key points.

Firstly, the fundamental principles: prioritise support to the most vulnerable people and countries; promote a rights and community based approach to adaptation; and incorporate transparent, participatory and inclusive decision making at all levels. Crucially, adaptation must also recognise the value and importance of healthy ecosystems.


Secondly, financial support must be both predictable and reliable, and result in regular and adequate flows. ECO believes reference to finance delivery must remain in the adaptation section, and supports strong references to adaptation in the main finance section.

Thirdly, the subsidiarity principle should apply. Countries and communities should decide what is needed to enable them to adapt, not developed countries or multilateral agencies.

Fourthly, the agreement must include a comprehensive approach to building resilience. There should be a stronger focus on addressing underlying risk factors for vulnerability, such as poverty and marginalisation.

Fifthly, a climate risk insurance mechanism should be initiated with two components. A fund for high-level, climate-related shocks financed by developed countries (to cope with disasters as just seen unfold in the Philippines and India), and technical and financial support for setting up and operating pro-poor micro insurance schemes.

Finally, there must be provisions to address loss and damage from irreversible large-scale impacts of climate change. To address this issue, Parties need first to recognise that such impacts are likely, especially if strong, science-based emission reductions targets are not achieved.

ECO is pleased to see reference to action on adaptation starting “now, up to and beyond 2012.” Parties must actively negotiate on these areas over the coming week. But the right words alone are not enough; brackets in the text highlight differences of attitude. Annex I Parties must recognise that financing for adaptation is not ODA. It is reparation for damage done - the adaptation deficit caused by their combined lack of mitigation action so far.

Subscribe to Tag: India