Tag: SBI

ECO watched with dismay the two-day (and counting…) negotiation over the agenda of the subsidiary bodies.  We were happy to see that the Ad hoc Working Groups got underway in a constructive fashion yesterday and hope to see quick resolution to the issues holding up the SBI and SBSTA.

Since these discussions are taking place (sadly, once again) behind closed doors, ECO is not in a position to judge what is really happening. We do realise that there are high political stakes in the issues being talked about broadly in these negotiations. Developing countries are being asked to do more in terms of MRV of actions and reporting while finance commitments are inadequate and reduction targets are slipping.  The fact that the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol is uncertain weighs heavily on many parties mind and on ours as well.

The work of the subsidiary bodies is critical to moving forward on many issues, but particularly for Adaptation, REDD, and MRV.  In Cancún, the advances in these three issues represented a real breakthrough for the last few years of negotiations. Those decisions set the stage for real action on the ground if Parties can begin working out how to operationalise them.  And getting these details right could help pave the way for the political decisions needed from the LCA and from the KP. While there are, no doubt, serious issues involved in the discussions around the agenda, the disagreement among Parties is undermining the  ability of the UNFCCC to effectively and efficiently  conduct the process to reach a FAB deal. 

ECO is unwavering in its belief that the UNFCCC is the most appropriate place for global cooperation on climate to take place so it  wants to see the UNFCCC more empowered.  We hope the parties can find a way to resolve these agenda disputes, preferably before they arrive at the meeting, in a way that strengthens the power and capabilities of the UNFCCC for the “full, effective, sustained, implementation” of the Convention, which is fundamental to life on Earth.

We are starting the crucial final week. Ministers are being briefed, crucial new texts are being minutely analyzed and insect bites are spreading. With so many difficult, complex and itchy matters competing for attention, it might be easy to overlook one fact. We have only two years to get climate finance flowing at scale before fast start finance expires in 2013.  But there’s good news: a variety of innovative sources of climate finance are right at our fingertips.
This week, Parties should create a robust process to discuss sources of long-term finance, with a clear work plan and outcomes that can deliver concrete decisions by COP 17. These steps will address where the financing will come from, and acknowledge that meeting mitigation and adaptation objectives  means scaling up finance substantially over the long term
The new LCA text usefully calls for a look at needs and options for mobilizing long term finance. But in the absence of a work plan and outputs, negotiators will face another year of wrangling over how to move forward.
Sources of financing is a political issue, not a technical one, and it must be discussed in the LCA, not pushed off into the SBI or a body focused on designing a new fund.
The issue was held in abeyance this past year while the UN Secretary General’s Advisory Group on Climate Finance (AGF) did its work. The AGF has now released the findings of 9 months of study. While ECO was disappointed that private finance and carbon markets are spotlighted, and multilateral development banks are inappropriately considered sources instead of channels of finance, this constitutes an impressive body of work including workstream papers that can serve as a useful starting point for the coming focus on ways to mobilize public finance.
One source is government budgets from developed countries.  This will continue to be an important source of international climate finance, and a scale for assessed contributions will be an important output of the process.
But to scale up public finance to the necessary scale, rising rapidly from fast-start levels, other innovative sources will be required. Mechanisms to address emissions from international shipping and aviation fit that bill.
The AGF has endorsed a mechanism to solve the equity question under the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities raised about this mechanism. The AGF proposal involves using a rebate to ensure that developing countries are not subject to any net incidence or burden from global measures to address emissions in these sectors.
In the shipping sector this rebate would be based on the share of global imports attributed to each country. Other options are discussed for the aviation sector. Developing countries will be entitled to the rebate, while the share of revenue attributed to developed countries would be administered under the UNFCCC and be used for adaptation and mitigation actions in developing countries.
Text introduced by Chile should supplement the Chair’s LCA text on aviation and maritime transport.  However, a process for committing to public finance options must go beyond the AGF report to include new submissions, workshops and a clear workplan to get to decisions by South Africa on specific sources.
If we can break the longstanding deadlock in addressing emissions in this crucial and grow, negotiators and Ministers can claim an important success here in Cancun. And all those mosquito bites can be a badge of honor.