Expectations of the Climate Action Network for the 26th Meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies, Bonn, 7-18 May 2007

Introduction

The publication of the IPCC reports leaves no room for doubt. Avoiding dangerous climate change is technologically and economically possible - and beneficial - but the time left to act is short.

Based on the best available scientific evidence, CAN thinks that avoiding dangerous climate change can be defined as keeping global average temperatures as far below 2°C as possible, compared with preindustrial levels. For this to be achieved, global emissions will need to peak by the middle of the next decade and begin to decline thereafter. A delay in action of only 5 to 10 years will require much greater rates of emission reductions later to achieve the same target, at significantly higher cost.

In light of their common commitment under Article 2 of the Convention, CAN therefore calls upon all countries to adopt the common objective of keeping global temperature increases as far below 2ºC as possible as the basis for future national and global action. The post 2012 agreement must be designed to support countries to embark on emissions pathways consistent with this goal. The IPCC report makes clear that global emissions must peak before 2015 in order to be consistent with this goal.

The priority for this 26th Meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies must be to make real and substantive progress on all of its agenda items preparing draft decisions on the Bali Mandate for the post 2012 negotiations. In order to avoid a gap between the first and second commitment periods, these negotiations must be completed in 2009.

AWG

The AWG will discuss ranges of emission reduction potentials of Annex I Parties. While analyses of what each country can do is important, the overriding question must be what the global community must do to avoid dangerous climate change. In order to keep well below 2ºC, the science demonstrates that industrialized countries will need to reduce their emissions by at least 30% by 2020 and that by then global emissions will already have peaked and be in decline. CAN looks forward to Annex I countries bringing forward positive analysis of the undeniable emissions reductions potentials that exist in their economies. In this spirit, CAN welcomes the EU’s and Norway’s respective commitments to a -30% target for 2020, compared to 1990 levels, but is of the opinion that these reductions should be achieved domestically, with additional deeper cuts to be achieved on the international carbon markets in support of sustainable development in developing countries.

In Bonn, the AWG will also review its work program. Based on the experience of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Berlin Mandate, which required eight and a half meetings over two and a quarter years to do the preparatory work for the Kyoto Protocol, it is clear that that additional intersessional meetings will be required in 2008 and 2009 to support a workplan ambitious enough to deliver substantive and comprehensive agreement in 2009. CAN encourages Parties to agree a timetable for intersessional meetings and to pledge financial support for them.

The Dialogue

CAN looks forward to a continued exchange of views and experience on technology transfer and adaptation in Bonn at this meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies. The Dialogue has been a useful forum for bringing new ideas into the international discussions; however, these new ideas need to be formalized as part of the Bali Mandate.

Technology development, cooperation and transfer are critical issues to achieve emissions reductions, sustainable development and adaptation. The scale of the technology transfer and finance needs to be appropriate to the scale of the required emissions reductions to meet the 2ºC objective. An analysis and synthesis of the options available to scale up technology transfer to meet this objective is needed, including discussion of the appropriate fora to manage and enable this.

It is clear that expanded adaptation mechanisms will be needed in the second commitment period, involving financial assistance, funding and capacity building, to deal with the impacts of climate change. Analysis is needed of the feasibility and costs of adapting to impacts, with special attention to the needs of the most vulnerable countries, regions and communities. CAN looks forward to the IPCC’s presentation of its work on adaptation issues.

Technology Transfer

The further development and rapid and scaled-up deployment of environmentally sound technologies is a necessary prerequisite to keep global warming below 2°C. Additionally, technology transfer can help to address some of the equity issues linked with climate change. Because of this, CAN supports strengthening the work on technological innovation, dissemination and deployment under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. This should include mitigation and adaptation technologies; where appropriate, in an integrated manner.

Future work on technology transfer needs to make the connection to the role carbon markets and other elements of a post-2012 package, as well as exploring how existing bi- and pluri-lateral technological cooperation can more effectively support the work on technology transfer under the Convention and Kyoto Protocol. Current technology transfer and investment under existing multi- and pluri-lateral frameworks (e.g. the World Bank and AP6) is locking countries into more fossil-intensive development paths, rather than renewable and energy efficient pathways. To be consistent with the below 2°C limit, these technology transfers and investment flows need to be redirected into clean technologies.

Adaptation

Climate change is already affecting people across the world, creating the urgent need for adaptation and vulnerability reduction activities. The woeful insufficiency of funds for adaptation and unwieldy access to funds and prioritization of funding for vulnerable communities remain outstanding, and concerning issues within the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol.

The Adaptation Fund is a key element to address these concerns and will be an important part of the wider post 2012 package. The choice of operationalizing entity of the Fund will influence the complexity of the funding application process for southern governments and the decision-making process for allocation of funds. Decisions on modalities, criteria/priority areas and management structure must be resolved before this choice is made. The structure of the operationalizing entity must reflect the Adaptation Fund's source of funds, namely generated through mitigation measures, rather than the voluntary, donor-driven, nature of current LDC fund and the SCCF.

Additional levies applied to greenhouse gas emitting activities and mitigation measures will be required to ensure additional and foreseeable and consistent financing of adaptation through the Adaptation Fund. Community-based adaptation activities in LDCs and SIDs and essential infrastructure projects should be prioritized, as these are most likely to see resources delivered to most vulnerable community groups.

Clearly the magnitude of adaptation required is dependent on the level of global temperature increase and thus on fulfillment of first commitment period obligations and the mitigation commitments agreed for post 2012. Without a high level of mitigation ambition to reduce emissions, climate change impacts in some cases may well become so severe that adaptation is impossible. For this reason, temperature increases must be kept as far below 2ºC as possible, compared with preindustrial levels.

Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries

Negotiations on how to achieve emissions reductions from deforestation in developing countries should begin in Bali, as a part of the Bali Mandate on post 2012. Discussions in Bonn need to lay the groundwork for these negotiations, which should aim to empower developing countries to begin addressing deforestation and its drivers. In CAN’s opinion, a national-level approach is superior to a project-based approach. Parties should continue to explore a variety of policy options and funding sources, including both market and non-market based options. In addition, technical and institutional capacity building in developing countries is vital, as are activities such as development of policies and measures to monitor and reduce deforestation. Annex I countries should support such activities and this support should begin expeditiously, and certainly before 2012. Emissions reductions made through reducing deforestation must be scientifically valid and verifiable.

Russian Proposal

CAN welcomes the Russian initiative to open discussions on the procedure for countries to take on voluntary commitments, and of incentives and differentiated types of action that might be appropriate for countries to volunteer to undertake. However, CAN is keen to ensure that “hot air” does not enter the system, weakening the environmental integrity of the international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The workshop will provide a useful forum for discussion of the scope and implications of the proposal. Mechanisms and processes for the matters covered by the Russian Proposal should be dealt with in the Bali Mandate and the elements of the Proposal should be incorporated into the negotiations post Bali.

CDM

In negotiating any decisions on the CDM, Parties must adhere to the twin objectives of the CDM: sustainable development and cost-effective GHG reductions. Such adherence is crucial for the environmental integrity of the mechanism and the Kyoto Protocol as a whole. 

    HFC-23 destruction projects at new facilities of HCFC-22

There should be no extension of the CDM HFC-23 methodology to new plants or additional production.  Including new HFC-23 destruction projects in the CDM appears to provide perverse incentives for increased HCFC-22 production, which may merely prolong rising emissions that threaten the protection of both the ozone layer and the climate system and do not demonstrate any sustainable development objectives. As a recent article in Nature shows , the abatement of these industrial gas emissions can be achieved at much lower cost than using CDM. . Considering the high global warming potential of HCFC-22 (1700 times that of CO2), the COP/MOP should work closely, constructively and supportively with the Montreal Protocol to ensure that an early phasing-out of HCFCs in developing countries is achieved. This could be achieved through a coordinated approach under the Kyoto and Montreal Protocols which would include aligning the incentives under the CDM and Multilateral Fund (MLF) and by instructing SBSTA to prepare rules, in partnership with the Montreal Protocol MLF, to assist in supporting the conversion of refrigerant production facilities and end-use equipment production facilities.

    Limit for small-scale afforestation and reforestation (AR) CDM.

Expanding the limit on small-scale AR projects could undermine the environmental integrity of the CDM, as large plantations could be passed through under simplified procedures. The Nairobi meeting agreed to expand the limit for ordinary (non-sinks) small-scale CDM project activities. Based on this, it was also decided that parties would discuss whether to expand the limit for small scale AR-CDM. At COP-9 when AR CDM rules were set, CAN expressed a serious concern that “small-scale” projects would not be really “small” but could be “large” in terms of land areas and their impacts. An increase in the allowed scale of small-scale AR projects could have serious social and environmental implications. Given the little experience on the ground, it is too early to redefine the limit on this issue and the limit should not be expanded.