Monthly Archive: December 2012

Dear Ministers:

This is the non-negotiable planetary deadline. The recent UNEP and World Bank reports have been unequivocal: the window to stabilize temperature increase below 2° C, and thus avoid the most dangerous climate impacts, is closing rapidly. Durban set a number of other deadlines for Doha which must be respected. They include adoption of the amendments to the Kyoto Protocol, the successful closure of the LCA, and agreement on work programmes for both the 2015 Protocol negotiations and raising near-term ambition. So roll up your sleeves, Ministers: there is much to do! As always, ECO has some helpful hints to make your week easier.

#1 Don’t cheat – it doesn’t help the climate or build confidence

The amendments to the Kyoto Protocol must be adopted in Doha, progressing the only legally binding climate agreement in order to streamline the process.

Keeping Kyoto alive is crucial for two reasons – first, it has key architectural elements that must be reflected in the 2015 Protocol. These include overall and national carbon budgets, economy-wide targets, common rules-based accounting, compliance and five year commitment periods. Second, it was part of the Durban package and its adoption will enable progress next year on both elements of the ADP — its 2015 Protocol negotiations and near-term ambition.
... Read more ...

ECO understands that progress on transparent reporting of climate finance is grinding to a halt. SBSTA was meant to adopt common tabular formats for reporting by developed countries of both emissions and climate finance. Now the process appears to be deadlocked with no immediate solutions in sight.

Apparently, developed countries are opposing a key proposal made by developing countries on transparent reporting – a common tabular format on climate change. Essentially, this is a method to provide listings of individual, bilaterally financed actions, rather than just aggregate figures per recipient country or per sector.

The idea to list every single financed action with information on title, recipient country, committed amount, climate component of amount, sector, mitigation/adaptation, grants / / loans (also stating grant equivalent) and so forth seems pretty reasonable to ECO. Transparency of one’s own actions is a key ingredient to a ‘circle of confidence’ and a precondition for the ‘V’ in MRV. Developed countries could use such lists to demonstrate transparency, as well as tracking where and how their climate finance is flowing.

However, developed countries continue to argue that submitting project listings is too cumbersome. ECO would like toremind everyone that developed countries are already compiling such lists – forexample, the OECD DAC reporting system currently used to report aid flows.
... Read more ...

ECO has been pondering the evident marginalization of the ‘civil society voice’ lately and started scribbling a few preambular thoughts on a serviette…

Reaffirming that vibrant public participation “allows vital experience, expertise, information and perspectives from civil society to be brought into the process to generate new insights and approaches”¹;

Acknowledging the respectful, positive and constructive dialogue at the December 1 ADP Special Event;

Encouraging Parties and the Secretariat to provide roundtables and other opportunities to enhance the full inclusion of civil society as a relevant and meaningful voice in these negotiations; . . .

#Operative text…

¹ Guidelines for participation of representative of NGOs at meetings of the bodies of the UNFCCC.

Side Event

Monday 3rd December

18:30 – 20:00

CLIMATE ACTION AND

ADVOCACY  IN THE SOUTH

Hall 5, Side Event Room 2

ECO is wondering how much more clarity this process needs. Amongst many others, the UNEP and the World Bank have pointed out that while there is still a chance to restrict temperature rise to two degrees centigrade, we are not on track to avoid dangerous climate change. ECO thinks that there is no disagreement about that.

So where are we on next steps to address this issue and agree on essential and urgent mitigation action? Well, the Umbrella group seems to be telling us that there is no need to worry because they are making progress – they have a proposal for a new process! Yes, the Umbrella Group is proposing to clarify the pledges under 1(b)(i) and have suggested a two year programme to do so.

ECO would like to get a couple of points in this proposal clarified. You’re saying you need more time to talk? And that there will be no agreement of common accounting rules here?

Surely a bit of common accounting for 1(b)(i) pledges would allow the mist to clear and help Parties to check comparability of effort? Just set out a carbon budget for 2020. If you think there is no need to compare apples and oranges, you could just check the number!
... Read more ...

In his remarks to the Parties on Wednesday, the Adaptation Fund (AF) chair underscored the great achievement made by the Fund this year. He emphasised, among other things, that the AF has now accredited twelve National Implementing Entities, which allow for direct access of developing countries to the funds of the AF. Experience shows that this has also triggered the strengthening of institutional capacities to manage project funds. For ECO, this is evidence that direct access is no longer a pilot test programme perceived as highly risky, but rather a reality. In addition, two years after its first call for proposals, the AF has approved 25 concrete urgent adaptation projects covering all fields of adaptation, with several more in the pipeline. A key objective is to target the most vulnerable groups.

Because of these significant achievements of the AF and at the same time the scarce resources at its disposal, ECO is seriously worried about the dwindling resources and lack of predictability that poor countries are facing. Due to the over-supply of permits, the lack of mitigation ambition and the global economic downturn, prices for CERs, which provide the main source of income for the AF, have gone down to record lows below US$2.
... Read more ...

In both ADP workstreams, Parties have begun taking positions on the future of CBDR. Some see a global spectrum approach as the way forward. Others advocate a system in which the annexes are nuanced and differentiated. Whatever happens, ECO sees the need for a dynamic system that differentiates on the basis of equity principles.

ECO believes that it is helpful to cluster the various equity principles into three groups:

• Precautionary or adequacy principles – because climate catastrophe would be the ultimate injustice
• CBDR+RC, which remains key, but must be interpreted and operationalised dynamically
• Equitable Access to Sustainable Development – because just and sustainable development are human rights that must be both protected and promoted by the climate regime.

Why wouldn’t Parties want to discuss these principles within a separate, one-year work programme, with the intention of operationalising them? Such a work programme must inform the ADP streams on near-term and post-2020 ambition. ECO calls for a COP decision on this equity work programme to be taken at Doha. The Shared Vision contact groups should prepare this decision.

One way or another, Parties have got to find the space to build greater understanding of one another’s positions if they are to identify areas of convergence.
... Read more ...