My name is Eddy Pérez, speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network.
Key to the Paris agreement are various provisions that allude to potential review and revision of ambition over the course of time. Given that the current set of INDCs are completely inadequate and would set the world, in the best case, on a 3-4ºC temperature pathway, CAN strongly encourages countries to increase their INDCs before inscribing them under the new agreement.
The 2018 facilitated dialogue will be one key opportunity for governments to review, revise, and resubmit their NDCs in line with credible science and equity considerations. Countries must consider the IPCC Special Report on impacts and potential pathways of 1.5ºC as they prepare for this dialogue.
The guidelines to be developed for the 2023 global stocktake need to be robust and must ensure the active participation of civil society. It must be comprehensive, and should actively encourage countries to revise their NDCs. The guidelines for the global stocktake should be anchored around science and equity. This can be facilitated through improving the information requirements for INDCs.
~~Dear Mr. Fuller,
I am writing to you on behalf of the Climate Action Network (CAN) as many of the members of the CAN are working on the climate, agriculture and food security nexus. Many of them, individually or collectively, made submissions to the SBSTA last year and will submit new texts for the two upcoming workshops to make sure that the needs and solutions of the most vulnerable people especially smallholder farmers are highlighted.
The fact that the SBSTA addresses issues relating to agriculture is a very positive sign. Nonetheless, we noted that during the workshops of June 2015, the space given to observers was extremely limited despite previous decisions of the SBI reminding that “the existing means of engagement of observer organizations could be further enhanced, in the spirit of fostering openness, transparency and inclusiveness” (FCCC/SBI/2011/7 - SBI-34 conclusions 178).
We therefore would like you and the secretariat to support the participation of civil society representatives in the two workshops. At least one representative of the different constituencies should be invited to give a presentation and actively participate to the discussion. We truly think that such a proposal will benefit all.
We remain at your disposal for further information. Thank you in advance for your kind attention.
Climate Action Network-International
Thank you Madam Chair,
I am Elaine See from Climate Action Network.
Responding to the climate crisis requires decisive action across all sectors.
But the SBSTA reports presentations demonstrate that ICAO and IMO are failing to address the significant and growing climate impacts of aviation and shipping.
18 years after Kyoto, these emissions are growing at a rate twice that of all other sectors. The Paris Agreement must send a clear signal that ICAO and IMO must make a fair contribution to limiting temperature increase to 1.5 degrees.
On agriculture, CAN appreciates Parties’ positive engagement here in Paris.
Parties should evaluate methodologies to ensure on-the-ground results while including considerations and safeguards to protect and promote food security, biodiversity, equitable access to resources, the right to food, animal welfare, and the rights of indigenous peoples and local populations, while promoting poverty reduction and adaptation.
Given the vulnerabilities of the sector, ongoing efforts to ensure sufficient finance for adaptation and for a Global Goal on Adaptation should also be supported.
We look forward to a further exchange of ideas and a dedicated workshop next year, where we request SBSTA to help identify options to enhance food security to protect the livelihoods of small-scale farmers.
In Paris, the mandate and the work of the 2013 – 2015 review will come to an end.
We have seen scientifically sound, relevant and highly interesting work of the Structured Expert Dialogue, we have learnt that the “guardrail” concept, where up to 2°C of warming is considered safe, is inadequate. Instead we need a long-term goal which makes the defence line as low as possible, ideally 1.5 degrees.
The science of the 2013 – 2015 review is clear, but the political conclusions drawn from its joint contact group (under SBI and SBSTA) were not.
Now in Paris the 2013 – 2015 review is again on the agenda of SBI and SBSTA, but also on the agenda of the COP.
To have prompt access to convincing arguments for a good final result of the 2013 – 2015 review in the attached document you find articles in CANs newsletter eco on the 2013 – 2015 review and CAN submissions on it.
~~To secure a strong outcome in Paris that facilitates ambitious climate action on the ground, a key pillar will be a “finance package” that covers both the pre- and the post-2020 period. Developed countries will have to demonstrate how they are meeting past promises (in particular the $100bn target). For the period after 2020, strong provisions on finance in the Paris Agreement are needed to enable developing countries to enhance their ambition beyond what they can do on their own, laying out the mitigation potential that could be unlocked with scaled-up financial resources. Also, developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable countries, will require increasing amounts of financial support to adapt to a changing climate and cope with the impacts. This submission outlines the Climate Action Network’s view on the main elements of this finance package for Paris.
As we approach the midpoint of this this vital year for climate action things are heating up. A slew of climate related events, reports and meetings are scheduled throughout May and June, from the UNFCCC Bonn Climate Change Conference to the G7, and the UNGA High Level Event on Climate Change in New York. Beginning in late May, thousands of people around the world will take to the streets in hundreds of different actions to call for solutions to the world's greatest problems climate change, poverty, inequality and unemployment. A wide range of voices, from business leaders, to the top tier of the faith community, youth, labour, and those from frontline communities will raise the pitch of the global chorus calling for the just transition away from a world hooked on fossil fuels, to one powered by 100% renewable energy.
Against this backdrop, negotiators will meet in Bonn to push forward the draft Paris agreement on climate change due to be signed this December.
This page will collate CAN's work on this session.
Thank you Mr. Chair,
My name is Harshita Bisht and I am speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network.
There is an essential piece of the Technology transfer, Development and Diffusion puzzle missing in the negotiations and that is the economic, social and environmental assessment of mitigation and adaptation technologies. Our goal is to maximize the flow of technologies based, on the principle of CBDR, from developed to developing countries. But for this to be productive we need to ensure that transferred technologies will not have unforeseen impacts.
Technologies that carry the risk of a global and potentially devastating impact should not be part of any decision or agreement. We call on all parties to demand that technology assessment be included within the mandate of the Technology Mechanism.
Regarding the negotiations on the Framework for Various Approaches, we welcome the cautioned approach not to prejudge progress towards a future climate treaty. However, this must not come at the expense of avoiding discussions on the nuts and bolts of an accounting framework, which we need to avoid that climate commitments are undermined. We call on Parties to start work on this important element in the ADP discussions as soon as possible.
Thank you Mr. Chair.
Thank you Chair,
I am Vositha Wijenayake speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network.
As Parties will deliberate on the Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) we would like to stress the following:
An FVA must be seen in the context of the 2015 agreement and must not prejudge the work of the ADP on the 2015 agreement.
Before establishing an FVA, experience with existing carbon markets needs to be taken into account. The vast majority of CDM and JI offsets come from non-additional projects. Experiences with JI show that even with sound accounting rules, low quality offsets can lead to higher global emissions than if commitments were met purely domestically.
The use of market mechanisms under a new agreement must under no circumstances undermine mitigation targets and it must not threaten sustainable development and human rights.
Therefore, only countries with ambitious domestic mitigation commitments, in line with the 2C degree target and equity principles should be eligible to participate in international markets. Moreover, the use of internationally traded units has to be supplemental to domestic mitigation efforts.
All internationally traded offsets have to meet environmental integrity standards as set out in Durban to ensure that traded units are real, permanent, additional and verified.
Robust and comprehensive accounting rules must be established to avoid double counting and to enable achieving net atmospheric benefits.