Blog Posts

Increase your AMBITION, not your EMISSION

Henriette Imelda
Institute for Essential Services Reform (IESR)

As COP 19 ended, I have to admit that it does not deliver the things that I would expect it to. Some say I probably have more expectations than the others. I have so much faith on the ADP track, as since it was first launched in Durban, I see quite some progress on the process. But then again, the result of the ADP in COP 19 does not really fulfill my expectations, where I’m expecting more clarity on a pathway to increase the ambition in pre-2020 period. The fact is, there is nothing promising in the text; at least not to increase the ambition, but rather it opens more opportunity to increase emission.

The most interesting part is as ADP open-ended consultations were (supposedly) always open for the observers, the fact was all the meetings became partially closed. Partially closed means that the open-ended meetings suddenly closed to observers because of the room capacity. I have never in my life been attending a COP where observers have to stand in line, waiting for their turn to be in an open-ended consultation. Where’s the room for NGO participation then? Probably some Parties just don’t want to be awarded fossil.

Although the results were not as I expected, I still have belief in this multilateral process; that it would finally come up with ambitious and concrete activities that could safeguard the world from the destructions caused by climate change. The current available multilateral process such as the UNFCCC is the only media for the whole countries in the world, to together sit and reflect, to achieve one goal; the ultimate goal of the Convention.

Now that Parties have gone back to their own countries, the battle would be in the domestic work. For developed countries, how to convince the domestic government to put more pledges in terms of finance and emission reductions, despite of the economic crisis or domestic politics that seem not in favor of such ambitious actions (at least this was their greatest worry and excuse of not putting any pledge). But, having concrete actions today, would result in a lower cost of actions for tomorrow, rather than to do that in the next years. Increasing the use of renewable energy as well as energy efficiency measures domestically will be one good and feasible choice to be done by developed countries at this point. Or reforming the existing production side of fossil fuel subsidies, will be a great example. Not only that the money can be used for energy efficiency measures and renewable energy activities to be conducted, but by reforming the fossil fuel subsidies will give more favor to energy efficiency measures as well as the renewable energy activities. Having said that, this will cause emission reductions.

For developing countries, there are so many things that need to be done domestically. Ensuring that there are healthy environment which enables all climate change related activities to be conducted, will be the most important one. Getting the domestic policies to be mainstreamed with the issue of climate change will be one big homework for developing countries.

COP 19 may be over; but the real homework lies in each individual countries. Winning the heart of parliament at home for instance, to get a positive political mandate from the government in the international fora, is definitely the greatest battle of all. But that’s where the ambition should start from; from the political will to achieve the ultimate goal of the Convention, with developed countries as the leading Parties just like what the Convention states.

Related Member Organization: 

Like being in a bandit’s nest!

Ange David Baimey 
Jeunes Volontaires pour l'Environnement Cote d'Ivoire

One wouldn’t be able to deny it anymore, common sense in the international climate negotiations is like kindness in a bandit’s nest. Or how else is it possible to understand that, at a time when Somalia suffered from extreme events and when the Philippines continued to count their many losses, the developed countries and some countries in transitions continued to ignore the never-ending calls from people in danger?

Bad faith is growing within the climate negotiations!

The strategic and economic interests prevail over the lives of people from Nepal, Nigeria or Tanzania, and the desire to not change anything becomes the norm as COPs come and go.

Some (and I’m not one of them) saw the COP in Warsaw just as a step without anything major at stake. A “transition COP” as some said! A warm-up before the big game!

A moment of test, a moment where the developed countries would make a bitter face to dissuade developing countries to raise the bar of their demands and voice stronger recriminations. A step where, from the very first moments, developing countries had to be rebuked in their demands for equity that were seen as a one-way street, and thus as a threat for already meager finances, depleted by economic crises and recessions.

A negotiation strategy that proved to be successful for big emitters, a masterstroke that event left many actors at the end of the Warsaw COP with a feeling of success, when it really was a big failure that opens the door to further failures in Lima and in Le Bourget in 2015.

In fact, this is simple to read and already the picture is getting clearer because, if all the fundaments and principles of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol are questioned, and if the IPCC’s message continues to fall on deaf ears, what else should we expect other than a bis repetita!

All these “déjà vus” continue to endanger the life of over 1 million Africans, to widen already huge gaps and to increase inequalities and social injustice. This lack of will, this this lack of lucidity, this bad faith unfortunately continue to be a shared perspective within the negotiations!

“When will this cycle of endless speeches and discussions end?” I was asked by a woman in a rural community when I came back from Warsaw. My silence was perceived as a wordless expression of my helplessness.

When indeed will the battle for economics, geopolitics and security interests end? When will 195 parties be able to find an agreement that goes beyond their differences in interests?

A Togolese friend told me during the Warsaw COP that according to a say in his village, when one puts calabashes on a stream, they end up touching each other, and then colliding with each other. This means that if 2 entities have to co-exist in a defined space, they will necessarily encounter clashes or conflicts in the course of that co-existence. But the most important thing is to make sure that this co-existence does not lead them to destruction.

This is the great story of multilateralism that we need to save at any cost to not allow all sorts of abuses to prosper and to threaten a peaceful coexistence.

 

Related Member Organization: 

In the search for positiveness

Enrique Maurtua Konstantinidis
Fundación Biosfera
Climate Action Network Latin America (CANLA)

While the final COP plenary was moving ahead with weak outcomes, many parties were leaving the room, and only counterproductive voices were making echo in the room.

Some Latin American countries, those with proactive intentions, those who see a future where everyone takes responsibility within their respective capabilities, were almost silent compared to those who tried to undermine the result of the last part of ADP and later the COP plenary itself.

It is sad to see countries not moving forward, throwing the towel (like we say in my home country). Delegates were definitely tired, we understand that. But CAN has always supported positive actions. We support action for a climate resilient world and that happens only if the ones who care about solid solutions are vocal.

Those Latin American countries who are taking responsibility must use that "moral" right to speak up. Leading by example, leading initiatives, no matter how small the economy is, how small the country itself is. It can always set the tone of conversations.

We keep listening about how weak the ambition is, how low the targets are. And I personally like to ask the innocent question, just like a kid would do: What is there to lose? Why don't you just speak up?

The final plenary had some important moments, some encouraging and some discouraging. That final plenary which started with chants encouraging delegates to give the last effort to the end to win the match of global deals.

There is nothing to lose in the match for a safer future, if others do not join, countries can do it domestically and in the end once we get international agreements, the ones that have done their homework would be ahead in the race to the future, in the race to the better, sustainable  world that we all want. 

Warsaw Wrap-up!

Vositha Wijenayake

Climate Action Network South Asia (CANSA)

 

COP19 came to an end, and most of us were home-bound when it did reach its end. This article is an attempt to sum-up the key elements of what was decided (or not decided) in Warsaw.

 

There were several key decisions taken at the COP in order to facilitate the implementation of the Convention.

 

  1. Mitigation Actions in the Forest Sector[1]

 

A decision was taken in order to provide for coordination of support for the implementation of activities in relation to mitigation actions in the forest sector by developing countries, and this also included institutional arrangements.

 

In this respect, interested Parties were called upon to designate a national entity or focal point to serve as a liaison with the secretariat and the relevant bodies under the Convention, in order to coordinate support for the full implementation of activities and elements referred to in decision 1/CP.16, paragraphs 70, 71 and 73. This also included adopting different policy approaches, and required the secretariat to be informed accordingly. In doing so, the interested Parties were to take into account national circumstances and the principles of sovereignty and noted that these national entities or focal points of the developing country parties could nominate their entities to obtain and receive results-based payments in order to provide them with support for full implementation of the activities.

 

These national entities or focal points, Parties and the relevant entities financing the activities referred to in the decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 70, were encouraged to meeting on a voluntary basis, in conjunction with the first and second sessional period meetings of the subsidiary bodies. In doing so, the participants are allowed to seek input from the relevant bodies established under the Convention, international and regional organizations, the private sector, indigenous peoples and civil society and can invite representatives of these entities to participate as observers in these meetings.

 

Thereafter, the Subsidiary Body for Implementation, at its forty-seventh sessions (November-December 2017) was requested to review the outcomes of these meetings, to consider the existing institutional arrangements or the need for potential governance alternatives for the coordination of support for the implementation of the activities referred to in the decision, and make recommendations on these matters to the COP at its twenty third session (November – December 2017).

 

A decision was also taken to implement a work programme on results based finance in order to progress the full implementation of the activities referred to in decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 70. [2]

 

  1. Response Measures

 

In order to deal with climate change, it is necessary to adopt adequate response measures. However, in developing countries, their priorities are social and economic development and poverty eradication, and the fact is that response measures could have negative environmental, social and economic consequences.

 

In this respect, the decision taken at the 17th Session of COP to establish a forum on the impact of the implementation of response measures to implement the work programme on the impact of the implementation of response measures was reiterated.  This forum had proved useful by providing opportunities to engage in in-forum workshops, an expert meeting and valuable initial discussions by Parties to order to improve the understanding the impact of the implementation of response measures. Therefore, a decision was taken to continue the forum on the impact of the implementation of response measures until 2015. Parties were invited to continue to participate in the forum and in the future, focus is to be placed on the impact of the implementation of response measures on expert input and the provision of concrete examples, case studies and practices so as to assist developing country Parties to deal with the impacts of the implementation of response measures.  The forum is to be convened by the Chairs of the subsidiary bodies to implement the updated work programme on the impact of the implementation of response measures. The updated work programme is to consist of an assessment and analysis of the impacts or response measures and an overview of the progress made at various levels in conducting activities to address the adverse economic and social consequences of response measures on developing countries. In addition to this, the work programme is to also include an opportunity to exchange experience and discuss opportunities for economic diversification and transformation, and to provide a dialogue on what Parties report on actions and impacts related to the implementation of response measures, as well as to share views on the impact of response measures on gender and health. [3]

 

  1. International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with climate change impacts[4]

 

The Warsaw International Mechanism for loss and damage was adopted under the Cancun Adaptation Framework, in order to address the loss and damage associated with the impacts of climate change, including extreme events and slow onset events, in particularly vulnerable developing countries.

 

In this respect, an executive committee was established and this committee is to report annually to the COP through the Subsidiary Body of Scientific Technological Advice and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation and make recommendations as appropriate.

 

The Warsaw International Mechanism’s duties include among others, promoting the implementation of approaches to address loss and damage associated with adverse effects of climate change, and in doing so, will facilitate support of actions to address loss and damage, improve coordination of the relevant work of existing bodies under the Convention, convene necessary meetings and provide technical guidance and support.

 

  1. Climate Finance

 

In order to deal with the need to finance action in respect of climate change, especially in order to address the needs of developing countries in the context of mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, action was taken in order to develop a work programme on long term finance. In this respect, a decision was taken to continue deliberations on long term finance and organize in-session workshops on strategies and approaches to scale up climate finance, cooperation on enhanced enabling environments and on the need to support developing countries. Further, it was also decided to convene a biennial high level ministerial dialogue on climate finance starting in 2014 and ending in 2020. [5]

 

Further decisions in respect of climate finance were taken in respect of the report of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) submitted to the COP and guidance given to the GCF.[6] In terms of the guidance given to the GCF, this Fund was requested to balance the allocation of resources between adaptation and mitigation and ensure appropriate allocation of resources for other activities, to pursue a country-driven approach, and to take into account the urgent and immediate needs of developing countries particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, when allocating resources for adaption.

 

In addition to this, a decision was also taken in respect of arrangements between the COP and the GCF  in order to set out a working relationship between COP and the GCF, to ensure that the GCF is accountable to and functions under the guidance of the COP to support projects, programmers, policies and other activities in developing country Parties. [7]

 

The Global Environment Facility also submitted a report to the COP and guidance was given to this Facility.[8] This report is submitted annually, and in this report, it included information on mitigation impacts. The duties of the Global Environment Facility was further clarified, in order to ensure that there was a clearer approach to co-financing, to ensure that there is adequate and predictable funding and facilitate funding for small island developing States and the least developed countries in order to enable them to address their urgent needs and to comply with their obligations under the Convention.

 

  1. Reporting Information on Activities under the Kyoto Protocol[9]

 

A common reporting format was adopted for the purpose of submitting information on anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks from land use, land-use change and forestry activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4. In addition to this, in providing information in respect of these categories, Parties are to apply the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, as well as IPCC 2013 Revised Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol. Further, in providing information on wetland drainage and rewetting elected activity under Article 3, paragraph 4 of the Kyoto Protocol, the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands is to be applied.

Further, in the annual greenhouse gas inventory report due by 15 April 2015, a specific method was adopted to calculate the greenhouse gas emissions.

 

  1. Clean Development Mechanism[10]

 

The Clean Development Mechanism adopted under the Kyoto Protocol, has been responsible for 7,300 project activities being registered in over 90 countries, with over 1,500 component project activities being included in over 230 programmes of activities registered in over 60 countries.

However, it was noted that participants in the clean development mechanism were facing a difficult market situation and there was a loss of institutional capacity, which threatens the value of the clean development mechanism. In this respect, a decision was adopted to provide guidance in respect of the Clean Development Mechanism. In this respect, measures were adopted to deal with the governance mechanisms and baseline and monitoring methodologies. Further, the guidance also included measures in respect of registration of clean development mechanism project activities and issuance of certified emission reductions, as well as measures to extend the capacity of the scheme to regional and sub regional areas.

 

In addition to this, a decision was also taken to review the modalities and procedures for the clean development mechanism[11]. In doing so, a technical paper is to be prepared by 19th March 2014, on specified issues relating to possible changes to the modalities and procedures for the clean development mechanisms, including their implications, for consideration by the Subsidiary Body for Implementation at its fortieth session (June 2014).

 

  1. Adaption Fund[12]

 

The Adaption Fund was established in order to finance adaptation projects and programmes in developing countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The first commitment period was funded mainly through the share of proceeds from Clean Development Mechanisms project activities, and thereafter, in Doha, in 2012, it was decided that the second commitment period, international emissions trading and joint implementation would also provide 2 percent share of proceeds.

 

The Report of the Adaption Fund Board was submitted and decisions were taken in this respect. The terms and conditions of services to be provided by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank) as trustee for the Adaptation Fund were adopted. It was also decided that an account held in the clean development mechanism registry for the Adaptation Fund will be the recipient of the 2 per cent of proceeds levied in accordance with decision 1/CMP.8, paragraph 21.

 

  1. Implementation of  Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol[13]

 

Article 3 of the Kyoto Protocol, provides for the Parties to the protocol to ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of listed greenhouse gases do not exceed their assigned amounts. In order to implement this, Article 6 provides that any specified Party could transfer to, acquire from, any other such Party emission reduction units resulting from projects aimed at reducing anthropogenic emissions by sources or enhancing anthropogenic removals by sinks of greenhouse gases, subject to certain conditions.

 

In this respect, a decision was taken to provide guidance on the implementation of Article 6 of the Protocol.  In this decision, it stressed the need to improve the joint implementation in contributing to the achievement of the objective of the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol. Further, it requested the Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee to submit elaborated recommendations on the accreditation system for joint implementation aligned with that of the clean development mechanism.

 

(References:  Summary on Warsaw, COP19 by Vidya Nathaniel for Sri Lankan Youth Climate Action Network (SLYCAN))

 
Related Member Organization: 

Global Climate Politics: less instead of more climate protection

Sixbert Simon Mwanga

Climate Action Network - Tanzania

The UN climate change meeting (COP19) was concluded in the city of Warsaw in Poland on 23rd November 2013. Initially the meeting was planned to wind up on 22nd November 2013. Like in many other UN climate change negotiations, COP19 witnessed developed countries acting as last minute brokers to most decisions. This left many delegates from developing countries who had high expectations from this COP for a roadmap to Paris frustrated and angry.

Some even left the national stadium and hotels before final decisions to most important issues.

NGOs and civil society walked out of the meeting hall in protest of the lack of progress in Warsaw. This was followed by shouting “Stop Climate Madness” by activists and civil society who remained into plenary meetings. As said earlier delibarately delaying until the last minute is not new in the UNFCCC talks and no one cares except representatives of the vulnerable countries.

This ever growing culture in the UN’s structure leaves many questions to delegates and civil societies representing already affected communities by climate change. These questions include: why delegates from developed countries push most of decions at the last minute of the negotiations even where there is a possibility to reach consensus earlier? Are they enjoying to make climate decisions alone as they are the main causative? Is this another form of climate change in the UNFCCC negotiations? Is it possible for these countries to show real leadership to address climate change impacts by providing climate finance with 50% on adaptation as well as meeting their emissions reduction commitments? What is the role of the UNFCCC secretariat  in these negotiations, how can it be utilized by whom and when? There is no easy way COP19 can easily forget countries like Australia, India, China, Poland and Japan which are responsible for the weak outcome of the conference.Some even came to decrease their mitigation ambitions while the Polish government welcomed COP delegates in a cynical environment because at the same time a coal conference was held in Warsaw.

Future of Climate Action

Regardless of the discouragements, relatively slow pace and hard time; a successful fight to climate change impacts needs a global partnership. The effective use of the Bonn sessions, Ban Ki-moon summit and COP20 in Lima will help us reach our goal of a strong, equitable international agreement by 2015 in Paris.

 

Tags: 
Related Member Organization: 

Can the Warsaw summit take a significant step towards more climate justice for all?

Ange David Baimey 
Jeunes Volontaires pour l'Environnement Cote d'Ivoire

In the beginning of June 2013, a World Bank report described a frightful scenario for the future. A few months ago, in September 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the first installment of its 5th report underlined that we are on a trajectory which is dangerous for all of us! In a time where we blithely progress towards the 2°C, in a time where an unprecedented typhoon  hits the Philippines and Vietnam, where droughts decimate crops in Kenya, Somalia and Djibouti, it is time to speak up for equity and climate justice.

Even better, it is time to stop speaking about it and take action.

But, although equity should be the cornerstone of the next climate deal, the concept seems to be labeled non grata by all the countries that refuse to strengthen their reduction actions, to save the adaptation fund or to mobilize additional public finance.

Maybe we should remind these countries that a deal in 2015 will be impossible if we do not first agree on equity. If we are not able to propose a fair distribution of efforts and benefits according to responsibilities and capabilities, we will not be able to rally the developing countries, from the least developed to the emerging economies.

The NGOs have a simple proposal: let’s agree here in Warsaw on the indicators which will allow to measure the ambition and appropriateness of each country’s future commitments in the 2015 deal: are these in line with what the latest IPPC report calls for? Do they match both the country’s historic responsibility and capabilities?

We will also have to make sure that the deal includes a mechanism allowing for an evolution of the level of commitments and of their repartition.

Obviously, for such a proposal to be credible, for developing countries to participate in this negotiation, the starting point should be to respect the already made commitments.

The NGOs thus expect the developed countries to reinforce their reduction goals instead of creating new ways out by leaving the Kyoto Protocol or going backwards on their targets. The NGOs expect that the developed countries live up to their financial promises. It is the necessary starting point for an acceptable deal in 2015.

Related Member Organization: 

COP 19 : “I Care”, Do You?

Henriette Imelda
Institute for Essential Services Reform (IESR)

Leaving for Warsaw, for COP 19, with the Polish Government’s promises in mind that COP 19 would be the Finance COP, has - to some extend -  given me a bowl-full-of-expectations. Finally, I thought, the climate change negotiations will turn into a positive, meaningful, and fruitful talks. Walking home not only with pledges but also the commitment for full implementation of the pledges.

As I walked around the centrum, reaching a place for a meeting, I suddenly saw this big banner over COP 19 with a tag “I Care”; what a hopeful banner for me, someone who comes from developing countries that still have problems with access to energy, as well as the fact of being heavily threatened by the impact of climate change. With the possibility of losing around 200 islands, and with a growing population that is currently over 240 million, do you think that we won’t have land issues for residence? Our dependence on fossil fuel to generate cannot be used as an excuse, to force us in reducing our emission, as we only have fossil fuel to light our houses. Renewable energy is still expensive for us to avail, which gives us more homework to be done because we still need to grow.

With such kind of a background, I came to Warsaw with full expectations.

Early morning on the day the COP 19 was supposed to end, I took a look at the ADP text that was uploaded at 5.45 in the morning. How surprised I was when I saw that all the important things were deleted; equity, timeline to review developed countries’ pledges, as well as enhance ambition. I felt betrayed, now that my expectations have been turned down, since developed countries have violated things that both developed and developing countries have agreed upon.

Many developing countries have to bear the cost of climate change by themselves. The Philippines has to bear the cost of destructions from the Haiyan typhoon, and some developing countries had to bear their own cost to develop their Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). We have done so many things to rebuild or sustain lives, but developed countries seemed not to care. Many times developed countries ask for NAMAs from developing countries. Now that we have some, why don’t you just put some money in there, showing that you, as developed countries, can still be considered as accountable for developing countries? We’ve done our part, now it’s yours, isn’t it?

The green big banner that I saw in the centrum, does not reflect on what the developed countries think of; not even for Poland’s government, the host. “I Care”? Really?? Do you???

If it is true, then show me! Put your pledge!

Related Member Organization: 

Opportunities for a change - Why COP 19 is important for Latin America

Enrique Maurtua Konstantinidis
Fundación Biosfera
Climate Action Network Latin America (CANLA)

While UNFCCC negotiations continue in COP 19, countries still struggle to make significant progress on crucial issues that are due to be agreed in this COP. Many issues need to be covered by the end of this week if we want to be certain that we are on the correct path for a 2015 deal.

Latin American countries are excited about COP 20 in Peru, but some challenges are in the way, right here and right now. The Latin American COP will be the last stop before we go to France for sealing the deal that will shape the commitments for the future of our climate, and we have our expectations for it. It is fair to say that a lot of planning has to happen and it is good to see that Peru is taking a lot of time to prepare for it.

Nevertheless it is important to recall that negotiations are happening right now and right here. Crucial issues like Finance and Loss and Damage are key for the remaining 5 days and countries know it. Latin American countries are playing active roles in the G77 and the negotiations in general. But we need to see more action; we need to come up with creative and diverse ideas that contribute to solve the problem, and they might be in Latin America.

Loss and Damage has to come up with a clear result. What happened in the Philippines is not impossible to happen in Latin America, and we know it.

Actions to promote Low Carbon Development should be highlighted here from all Latin American Countries. We don't want them to be in the same path that brought us here. It is just not acceptable to defend fossil fuels saying it is a necessary evil...

So it would be good to see that creativeness coming from the next COP presidency and its neighbours. After all, whatever is not agreed in Warsaw will have to be dealt with in Lima, and considering how much is already in the list of issues for 2014... that is just too much.

Related Member Organization: 

MRV in Warsaw

Photo: IISD

Vositha Wijenayake

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.

The requirements pertaining to countries are developed based on the common but differentiated principle (CBDR). This in turn explains that the Annex1 countries i.e. developed countries are endowed with a higher level of obligation on their reporting than the developing countries. In more specific terms this involves the developed countries having to undergo a review process by experts to ensure completeness, consistency and accuracy of reported information. The review also encompassed a review by Parties, of efforts made by developed countries to meet their obligations under the Convention.

The Bali road map extended the gambit of the MRV by strengthening the reporting requirements of both the developed and developing countries as well as instituting a formal process of review, international analysis and review (IAR) for developed countries and international consultation and analysis (ICA) for developing countries.

This in turn required the developed countries to report annual GHG inventory every year; prepare a biennial report – highlighting the progress made in meeting its obligations under the Convention, both, on mitigation pledges and support; and national communication every four years; and, for the developing countries to prepare a biennial update report, including GHG inventory, on planning and implementing NAMAs, and to prepare a national communication every four years.  All efforts of developing countries for reporting are supported by the Convention.

Guidelines for measurement is the key of an MRV system. This is the first step in ensuring consistency, relevance and completeness of information. One such measure can be seen in the form of all countries being required to prepare their GHG inventories in accordance with the IPCC GHG inventory methodology. The common accounting methodology also makes it possible to compare the information across sectors, both within and across countries.

An outstanding issue at present is the common tabular format (CTF) to compare the pledges, progress made in pledges, as well as reporting on the support provided. The challenge faced concerns defining climate finance, how to report different forms of public support (grants, loans, etc), and defining new and additional support. The last element relates to separating, in broad terms, the finance provided for development issues in developing countries through bilateral aid from finance provided for climate related activities.

Here in Warsaw there are a few things that we need to achieve, among which lies the creation of a process that allows all countries to understand what is pledged by others, and to be able to develop new offers for the post-2020 period.  Warsaw needs also to be able to highlight what needs to be included in Party offers, equity and scientific benchmarks, in addition to how these offers need to be reviewed.  

Furthermore there is also need for the procedures and the outcomes for both the preparation and assessment processes to be equitable. Thus this process needs the inclusion of credible elements that possess the capacity to assess whether countries are doing their “fair “share, in line with science and a set of equity indicators.

 

References made to discussions of CAN MRV working group, and to “MRV in Warsaw” by Mr. Sudhir Sharma for ClimAsia, Warsaw  edition. 

Topics: 
Related Member Organization: 

What Can Motivate Delegates to Make Right and Timely Decisions?

Sixbert Simon Mwanga

Climate Action Network - Tanzania

The second week of November 2013 witnessed delegates and representatives from more than 190 countries landing on Polish land. The reason for their coming was not to see the beauty of Poland but to discuss and make important decisions on harmful climate change impacts at the UNFCCC Conference of Parties 19 (COP19) and the 9th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol taking place from 11 to 22 November.

The first week of the Warsaw climate change conference was full of sadness and sorrow due to Super Typhoon Haiyan which caused massive deaths across our beloved Philippines. These were the innocent people with insignificant contribution to climate change. This can be a topic of its own.

Since their arrival, civil society representatives have been showing their clear concern and demand from delegates to take a lead in making decisions to address climate change; both causes and impacts. However, since 1994 and up to now, not much ground has been covered in these negotiations. There has been a culture of lagging behind which has favored the increase of events related to climate change around the world.

This leaves many questions to already suffering and vulnerable communities. Among these questions, one could ask “what motivates delegates to make right and timely actions?” If delegates are not motivated and cannot act based on what science tells us regarding the climate and global warming, wouldn’t they be motivated to save their children, elder brothers and sisters who are already suffering from the impacts, sometimes to death? Why can’t they consider and value billions and billions of money their governments invest in infrastructure year after year that then get destructed within a minute? Should climate scientists stop climate studies and put heads together with medical doctors and psychologists to find what can motivate UNFCCC climate change negotiators to take right and timely actions?

Should we continue delaying while learning words and vocabulary to use while extending our condolences to countries and families which will be losing their manpower and future generations? Should we continue waiting to advertise ourselves in meetings that we care enough and we have offered money to bury dead people? May be we should find another name to replace the word delegate.

“Country representatives”: increasing finance, adaptation and mitigation ambitions here in Warsaw, this is what we want from you. This is our simplest indicator of success. Don’t turn yourselves into stones, please establish international mechanisms on loss and damage.

Related Member Organization: 

Pages