MRV Working Group
Transparency of action and support will underpin a credible climate regime. It is critical for building trust between Parties and holding them to account in the fulfillment of their commitments, and is needed to both understand what countries are offering in their INDCs and to track progress of mitigation, means of implementation, and adaptation actions.
CAN therefore believes that Parties should move towards a robust MRV framework, with 2016-2020 acting as a transition period, and that most developing countries will only be able to enhance their efforts with sufficient provision of support; taking into account LDCs.
The CAN Transparency & MRV working group’s advocacy efforts to this end include intelligence gathering, organizing bilateral meetings with Parties, text analysis, and producing ECO articles.
For more information please contact:
Neoka Naidoo, Project90, email@example.com
~~CAN is encouraged that the Co-Chairs’ tool contains a substantial amount on land sector accounting rules from the Geneva Negotiating Text (GNT). We have long advocated the need for such rules and think that an environmentally sound outcome can be developed from the current text. We would prefer the principles governing land sector rules to be included in the treaty text, simply because they are principles, but accept that the same outcome can probably be achieved if they are included in the COP Decision, where the Co-Chairs have placed them.
Climate Action Network South Asia (CANSA)
Article 12 of the UNFCCC recognises measuring, reporting and verification (MRV) as a key element or rather a pillar for ensuring transparency, building trust among parties. Furthermore it adds to ensuring accountability among the Parties. The Convention calls upon Parties for regular reporting on efforts taken by countries to address climate change.
There is much on the Warsaw agenda for enhancing the current MRV system from Cancun as well as enabling the ex ante equity and adequacy review of post-2020 targets.
But the lack of progress regarding the review guidelines for developed country biennial reports and developing country International Consultation and Analysis (ICA) reports is disheartening. In both cases, the importance of a strong technical assessment is crucial, though the purposes are different.
My name is Vositha Wijenayake and I am speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network.
The latest Emissions Gap Report from UNEP, like the others before it, shows that current mitigation pledges fall short of what is needed resulting in a large mitigation gap between what science requires and what countries have pledged. Not closing this gap now and urgently, will mean more costly action later and probably closing the door on the ability to limit warming to 1.5 C.
(a) Application of Principles of Convention
The UN climate talks failed to deliver increased cuts to carbon pollution, nor did they provide any credible pathway to $100 billion per year in finance by 2020 to help the poorest countries deal with climate change, according to the 700 NGOs who are members of Climate Action Network-International (CAN-I).
As COP 18 welcomes Ministers from around the world, ECO would like to focus their attention on significant matters related to adaptation. May we have your attention, Ministers: adaptation needs are closing in fast!