The Leadership Development Program (LDP) is one of CAN’s cornerstone programs that aims to strengthen its national and regional nodes and build professional leadership within the network....
Tag: Latin America
While ECO found it extremely pleasant to hear Chile, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Kenya, Bolivia and Cote d'Ivoire’s plans to contribute to global climate action during yesterday's workshop on Non Annex 1 mitigation action, ECO wonders why some of the big emitters from the developing world tried to hide under their desks. You can’t hide an elephant... or its emissions. ECO knows that some of these countries have big plans, and would like to see more information about their targets and their plans. Take some countries with high emissions from deforestation. Brazil and Indonesia made short interventions in Bangkok, but we were expecting some more information in Bonn. Especially given the news that reached ECO about the proposals to “reform” the Brazilian Forest Code and the message from a large amount of Brazilian scientists that the proposed amendments would make it difficult if not impossible for Brazil to achieve the pledges it has inscribed into the famous INF documents. And ECO still misses news about the target of DRC, and wonders why the government's ambition to reduce emissions from deforestation to zero below 2030 has not been submitted to the UNFCCC. Similarly, it would be quite interesting to get more information from countries like Nigeria, Iran, Venezuela, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and Thailand, who are all part of the biggest emitters.
Obviously, if all these countries, led by Argentina, would send their pledges to the UNFCCC, that would make an important contribution to closing the gigatonne gap, as ECO learned from a presentation by AOSIS, showing that also developing countries have a contribution to make in the fight against the gap.
Clarification on all these plans will allow Parties to look at the real contribution of current developing country plans, and would allow a discussion on what more can be done, by looking into what other supported action could be taken. Which makes a discussion on innovative sources for long-term climate financing all the more important. ECO knows that most Parties are aware of that but has heard it couldn't pass some umbrellas. Perhaps some of the suggestions made at the end of the workshop, including the development of formats and guidelines, and an initiative to ensure Parties learn from each others’ experiences and good practices could help.
Inventories look daunting but they can help with national policy making, NAMA design, tracking energy use which helps with national budgets etc. Also the suggestion for the secretariat to develop a technical paper on developing countries action could help the negotiations to move forward. The elephant caravan left from Bangkok, but all the elephants have yet to show up. They cannot hide forever. We hope they show up by Durban.
It is tough to spot the actual emissions reduced through the current thicket of different Annex I country pledge formats. And many countries suggest to further obscure the actual impact by including complex means of accounting for sources and sinks from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF).
In the Annex I mitigation workshop on Thursday, AOSIS highlighted the potential contribution of lax LULUCF rules to the gigatonne gap, as described by UNEP. The Secretariat’s recent paper on the assumptions and conditions of Annex I Parties’ targets begins to clarify the extent to which Annex I countries will rely on the LULUCF sector to comply with their targets.
However, the question remains: which LULUCF rules are we talking about? These rules for the 2nd commitment period have not yet been decided! ECO seconds the statement made by St. Lucia on Thursday that there is a pressing need for much greater transparency regarding what assumptions Parties are using in their LULUCF accounting, and encouraging the use of common methodologies.
Targets without clear LULUCF accounting rules are like a box of chocolates – you never know what you are going to get. To remedy this situation, ECO thinks Annex I Parties should take the suggestion that Colombia made in Bangkok – to submit tables showing what
their commitments would be under different accounting options, including the different options on the table for LULUCF. These tables would make the role of this sector clearer to everyone. They would also illustrate clearly which countries are relying on their forests to help meet their targets, and which Parties are expecting to use delayed accounting for wood products or the exclusion of emissions from natural disturbances in their accounting.
It is impossible to make informed decisions on targets until it is clear what rules underpin them. With the kind of clarity and transparency Colombia has requested, Parties may be able to complete the task of decision-making that they failed to finish in Cancun.
With the progress made in last two meetings in Bonn and Tianjin, NGOs in BASIC countries move forward beyond experience sharing and begin to discuss how do we see each other and how to build collaboration in coming future.
The first step is to identify what are the common challenges and differences we are facing now. And we do find many things in common. All these countries are emerging economies with remarkable divisions between the rich and the poor and rapid urban expansion, which has a huge and growing need for energy, often fossil-fuel based. Climate change is a common environment issue in these countries, while pollution, deforestation as well as other local environment challenges should also be deal with. Economic growth looks more important to governments than climate protection, none of these countries have a strong climate movement to face this problems and everyday more communication is needed on Climate Change with public. Beside these commonalities, these countries still have lots of differences, especially in politic system, economic structure as well as the relationship between government and civil society.
We believe that both commonalities and differences can be beneficial for future cooperation. About the future, we all agree that information sharing for good practices such as local actions addressing mitigation and adaptation actions is very important.
We really hope that with a regular communication mechanism, the cooperation among basic countries could bring a very different perspective from former international NGO cooperation and will enhance the global civil movement in addressing climate change
December 9, 2010
World NGO Leaders call on Ministers to deliver climate agreement
Heads of WWF, Greenpeace, Oxfam, and CAN call out blocking countries
[On demand webcast available]
[Cancún, Mexico] The leaders of four international environment and
development organizations here at the climate talks in Cancún urged
Ministers to produce a strong and meaningful climate agreement and called
out individual countries for blocking progress in the climate talks under
An on-demand webcast of the panl is available now at:
Leaders participating on the panel included:
- Yolanda Kakabadse, President, WWF International;
Governments should stop blaming each other and have the courage and the
vision to be remembered by the people of the world. This is not a winners
and losers option, we must all win
- Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director, Oxfam International;
³With just two days left in the Cancun talks, we are in a position to move
forward on a number of significant issues. Now it¹s time for the negotiators
to stop blocking and get to work negotiating. We need some practical
progress to build trust, confidence and momentum that will deliver concrete
results here in Cancun for poor people around the world. If they do this,
ministers can final lay to rest the ghosts of Copenhagen once and for all
and move us forward in the fight against climate change.²
- Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director, Greenpeace International;
"Minsters here in Cancun can make history this week, they can set in motion
a sequence of events that will build hope for the future, mark a transition
to a fair and just world in which the environment and equity go hand in
hand, they can build the trust needed to deliver a climate saving treaty in
- David Turnbull, Executive Director, CAN International.
When Obama came into office I was as optimistic as any that we would see a
sea change in these talks. Unfortunately it appears the President and his
administration are paying too much attention to the climate-denying Senators
in Washington DC rather than living up to the goals they have set forward in
public time and time again. They are blocking progress on increased
transparency in their own reporting, while demanding more from China and
India on that same issue.²
Where: UNFCCC Press Conference Room Luna, Moon Palace, Cancún
Original webcast: 11:30 AM local (17:30 GMT), Thursday, December 9, 2010
Who: World NGO Leaders on Cancún climate talks
Climate Action Network (CAN) is a global network of over 550
non-governmental organizations working to promote government and individual
action to limit human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable
levels. For more information go to: www.climatenetwork.org
For more information contact:
Hunter Cutting: +52(1) 998-108-1313
Brazil seems to be its own worst enemy. Not only did President Lula publicly state last week that the negotiations in Cancun won´t go anywhere, the Brazilian legislature is on the verge of delivering a fatal blow to real hope for future emissions reductions. Brazil’s remarkable recent accomplishments could well be stopped cold.
The annual emissions of CO2eq in Brazil in all economic sectors is on the order of 2 Gt. In 2010, Brazil announced another record for emissions reduction, to applause from ECO and the world. Brazil’s deforestation rate fell to another record low, with Amazon deforestation down from over 27,000 km2 in 2004 to below 6,500 km2 this year.
And yet the Brazilian House of Representatives is ready to approve a new forest code that will be the most shameful endorsement of anthropogenic global warming in recent history. And it seems that some 370 of the 513 Representatives are ready to approve this leap backwards.
The bill provides amnesty to illegal deforestation and degradation, it reduces the preservation area along rivers, and eliminates the need for legal reserves for rural properties of a certain size and a discount for larger properties.
When Brazil associated itself with the Copenhagen Accord, its commitment was to reduce emissions by 36.1% to 38.9%, the latter being about 1 Gt of CO2eq.
However, a recent study coordinated by a group of respected NGOs in Brazil, including Fundação Boticário, WWF-Brazil, TNC–Brazil, IMAZON, SPVS and Conservation International, demonstrates that just two of the many changes in the proposed forest code will massively increase Brazil´s total national emissions as well as reduce its carbon storage.
And so all of a sudden, all Brazilian forests are again at risk. In this case, the primary cause is a direct consequence of human activity – a vote.
The world was thrilled and energized by Brazil’s amazing accomplishments in reducing forest degradation. Now it is our responsibility to say that turning back on this grand achievement is simply wrong.
Find us on Facebook!
Jun 3, 2013 - Jun 14, 2013
Apr 29, 2013 - May 3, 2013
Nov 26, 2012 - Dec 7, 2012
Nov 21, 2012 - Nov 23, 2012
Aug 30, 2012 - Sep 5, 2012
Jun 20, 2012 - Jun 22, 2012
May 14, 2012 - May 25, 2012
Nov 28, 2011 - Dec 9, 2011
Oct 19, 2011 - Oct 21, 2011
Oct 1, 2011 - Oct 7, 2011