CAN INTERVENTION, REDD INFORMAL, 7 OCTOBER 2011
Submitted by Anonymous on
Submitted by Anonymous on
Submitted by MBrockley on

Pipa Elias from the Union of Concerned Scientists gave an intervention, on behalf on CAN, in the REDD LCA contact group on October 6.
Photograph courtesy of IISD/Earth Negotiations Bulletin
Submitted by MBrockley on

Photo Credit: Leila Mead/IISD
Submitted by MBrockley on

Photo Credit: Leila Mead/IISD
Submitted by Anonymous on
Halfway through the meeting in Panama, ECO would like to present an assessment of progress made thus far. Overall, ECO is happy to note that Parties are very busy preparing and discussing text. There are still potential storm clouds on the horizon for Durban, however ECO hopes that by the end of this week Parties can get agreement on producing a set of decision text that can narrow the remaining political differences and lay the groundwork for important steps forward in Durban. While not comprehensive, here is ECO’s take on some of the issues under discussion here this in Panama.
Substantive discussions on issues related to legal architecture have percolated up in Panama - including in the LCA informal group on Legal Options (despite Saudi Arabia's best efforts to squelch those discussions). But there is clearly no meaningful convergence on these issues, and the process lacks a forum for having the cross cutting dialogue necessary to ensure coherent outcomes of the two tracks in Durban. While outside the main talks here, the Mexico-PNG proposal to address voting procedures is a welcome attempt to focus attention on improving the efficiency of the UNFCCC process.
On the pathetically low levels of developed country ambition – Parties have shown signs that they are at least at step one: recognising they have a problem. ECO hopes that Parties can come up with a clear process on how to address the gigatonne gap in Durban and happy to see there are some proposals on the table.
On the LULUCF issue being addressed in the Kyoto Protocol track, ECO applauds the principle put forward by the G77 this week in its proposal to treat natural disturbances using a statistical approach. ECO is waiting to see if this new proposal will also be transparent, robust and conservative. On the other hand, the implications of New Zealand’s proposal for “flexible land use” raises significant concerns that this could wreck other parts of the LULUCF accounting rules and has the potential to cause further damage if used in REDD.
The opening informal on finance kicked off with clashes over whether to negotiate the Standing Committee or long-term finance (scaling up 2013-2020 finance as well as sources). After Bonn, ECO anticipated that Parties would finally agree to focus on long-term finance. But it didn’t take long for disappointment to take hold as the US, other umbrella group members and even some EU countries refused to discuss text – with the US insisting that responsibility lies with individual parties to determine how they will reach the $100bn Cancun commitment. If that’s the case, ECO thinks the US should be made to say what their plan is! Chief among the innovative finance sources that should be addressed is bunkers, where a decision under sectoral approaches to guide the International Maritime Organization to design a carbon pricing instrument taking into account the principle of CBDR would be a significant outcome in Durban.
Discussions on the scope and modalities of the 2013-15 Review happily included an IPCC briefing on the scope and timing of its Fifth Assessment Report and how its findings could contribute to the review process. ECO urges Parties to creatively design and adopt at Durban a three-year work program that creates an ‘upward spiral of ambition’.
ECO welcomes that views on the Adaptation Committee became clearer during the last few days and that more and more Parties are considering ways that civil society can be an active part of the committee. But in the next three days, nothing less than draft decision text will do -- especially as seven other critical issues on adaptation remain to be addressed in Durban.
The technology facilitator has shown commendable initiative in developing draft decision text. However, the first reading of the text throws into relief the developed countries’ attempts to thwart progress by bracketing various critical elements and options essential for operationalizing the Technology Mechanism by 2012. ECO urges parties to ratchet up the speed of drafting decision text through pointed discussion around critical issues and ensuring that the Cancun Agreement timelines for operationalizing the technology mechanism are met.
Finally, ECO is pleased that negotiators are intensively addressing the myriad issues involved on MRV, including ICA, IAR, and biennial reports, that text is being developed, and that NGO participation in the IAR process is under serious consideration. Similar consideration, though should be given to such participation in the ICA process.
Submitted by MBrockley on
The Climate Action Network International (CAN-International) is the world’s largest network of civil society organizations, with 700 member organisations in over 90 countries, working together to address the climate crisis.
The Climate Action Network (CAN) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the work of SBSTA by giving our
views on the issues identified by SBSTA at its thirty-fourth session, recorded in document FCCC/SBSTA/2011/L.14.
This submission is in three main parts, corresponding to the issues identified by SBSTA:
1. Guidance on a system for providing information on how safeguards referred to in appendix I to decision
1/CP.16 are addressed and respected;
2. Guidance on modalities relating to forest reference emission levels and forest reference levels;
3. Guidance on modalities for measuring, reporting and verifying as referred to in appendix II to decision
1/CP.16.
In addition, there is a short section on forest definitions which might be considered as part of either the first or
third sections...
Submitted by MBrockley on
We are encouraged by progress in SBSTA on methodological guidance on REDD+.
The safeguards information system discussion identified commonality between parties concerning:
• the full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders including indigenous peoples and local communities;
• the need to build on existing systems;
• regular international reporting, including biennial reports; and
• participation of observers in Submissions and Expert Meetings and Workshops.
We support the establishment of ‘Principles’ including Transparency, Regularity, Simplicity, Accuracy, Reliability, Participation, and Completeness.
Unfortunately, the continued failure to differentiate ‘natural forests’ from ‘plantations’ means further attention is required to properly address the safeguard against conversion.
We emphasise the urgent need for recourse mechanisms for affected people, in particular indigenous peoples and local communities.
Reference levels should be set to contribute to mitigation of climate change, encourage broad participation of countries, and we support the use of historical baselines for reference emissions levels.
We encourage further discussion on international baselines to address international leakage and the potential to address drivers of deforestation and forest degradation.
Finally, modalities for forest carbon monitoring and MRV will be important to address this year, in particular full and independent review and addressing gaps in COP and IPCC Guidance.
Thank-you
Submitted by Anonymous on
ECO was excited that Parties started to discuss the more technical aspects of MRV. Has someone finally noticed our cries for progress? Of course, ECO is dismayed that except for some older agenda items in the SBI, none of these meetings have been open. The discussions around biennial reporting, IAR, and ICA (you know, the alphabet soup…) have been about as transparent as a brick wall. We might agree that MRV is a geeky exercise, but that doesn’t make it any less important. That said, ECO requests that certain developed-country Parties do not use MRV to impede progress on core issues.
On MRV itself, ECO has a lot of ideas – we’ve spent time getting up to speed on technical issues and attending side events while we were locked out of the negotiations. While Durban may be too soon to figure out the entire MRV system, there are some baby steps that can be taken. In no particular order, they are:
1. Guidelines for Biennial Reporting– We’ve heard that there’s some confusion on this point. For now, ECO will say that whether it is a developed-country biennial report or a developing country biennial update report (based on national circumstances), guidelines still need to be agreed. Separate guidelines, mind you – but in both cases an enhancement over the current ones, which are well overdue for revision. Developed countries, this does mean you actually have to step up and provide adequate support, not only for domestic systems, but also for the actual reports! And while we’re on the subject of support, let’s not forget the need for delivering and reporting on support obligations (CRF anyone?)
2. Accounting– First, the KP rules! KP Parties must commit to a second commitment period and follow the MRV rules contained there. Developments in the LCA should complement, and in no way replace, these rules. Indeed, it would be great if the KP rules we know and love are strengthened in the KP track. Oh, and for the one remaining non-KP developed- country Party (we haven't forgotten about you), you really need to agree to common rules.
3. IAR/ICA– Here, we ask that if you can’t take a baby step, then at the very least crawl. An outline of the scope and functions needs consideration in tandem with the reporting discussions. Again, this should complement and not replace the verification and compliance processes for KP Parties.
4. Take a leaf out of the REDD+ negotiators’ books– the REDD+ discussions in the LCA and SBSTA have been open for the most part. Also, some of it actually dealt with accounting and reporting on REDD+ activities and the information-sharing system for safeguards! While you discuss the value of openness with your REDD+ colleagues, you may also want to touch on how the REDD+ monitoring system and the information-sharing system for safeguards fit into the overall MRV framework. (Hint: Consider putting on your biennial reporting caps.)
ECO welcomes some serious technical thinking on these points. Maybe some technical workshops or expert meetings are in order? This would certainly be money well spent. We ask that you keep this in mind as you finalize plans for the next few months.
Submitted by Anonymous on
Bonn is a key moment to make progress on MRV issues. While there are a great many political issues at play, work on some technical issues needs to begin now.
Parties should agree on the structure, timing, and content of the workshops that are needed to discuss new or enhanced elements of MRV in the coming months. These workshops should be informed by existing submissions of Parties and observers, and should involve calling for further submissions.
Submitted by MBrockley on
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 8 June 2011
The first place Fossil of the Day Award goes to the United States of America. This fossil is awarded for opposing a discussion of sources of long-term finance in the LCA. Secretary Clinton herself pledged to work with other countries to jointly mobilize $100 billion per year by 2020 for climate action in developing countries. Meeting that commitment has to start with exploring options of innovative sources of public finance in the UNFCCC. The US must be open to a process under the LCA to at least start the conversation.
Papua New Guinea receives the second place Fossil. This award goes to PNG for saying Tuvalu did not have enough trees to be entitled to have an opinion on REDD or advocate for the rights of indigenous peoples. PNG has shown it is far removed from the reality of its Pacific island neighbours in terms of REDD. PNG's response to Tuvalu's call for transparency was tacky to say the least and reflects its ignorance of the 'Pacific Way'. Tuvalu took a principled position in supporting the interests of indigenous peoples - whether that is in the interest of Tuvalu is not the issue, as countries should not only defend their national interests but also global ones.
About CAN: The Climate Action Network (CAN) is a worldwide network of roughly 700 Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working to promote government and individual action to limit human0induced 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.
###
Contact:
David Turnbull
dturnbull@climatenetwork.org
USA: +12023163499
Germany: +49(0)2523657307