Tag: 5 year plan

CAN Letter to WIM ExCom and UNFCCC Secretariat, October 2017

CAN looks forward to the considerations to be made at ExCom6. The further elaboration of the ExCom’s 5-year workplan will, in our view, be a key issue and key deliverable by the ExCom to COP23. It will shape the direction of travel and ambition of the WIM and will determine whether it will be able to actively respond to the request by COP22 to “enhance action and support” and to the needs that developing countries face in light of growing loss and damage. CAN has been actively engaging in this process and has previously forwarded a submission.

However, we would like to raise our concerns regarding the transparency and inclusiveness of the process around the 5-year workplan. While we appreciated the interactive and inclusive atmosphere at ExCom5 which allowed civil society and other observers to actively engage and contribute to the process, since then observers have been largely closed out from any further discussion.

Many countries and observer organisations have for many years put significant efforts, have worked intensively and have added significant value on the establishment and design of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage. We expect that the ExCom and the UNFCCC Secretariat continue to uphold its mandate to work in an inclusive and transparent manner at this crucial time which is essential for the WIM’s future direction. We look forward in continuing to contribute proactively in enhancing the impact of the WIM for the benefit of those people and countries most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. 

Region: 
Organization: 

CAN Submission on Recommendations for the WIM ExCom 5-Year Workplan, October 2017

The Executive Committee (ExCom) of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts (WIM) is due to present its five-year workplan at the upcoming COP23.  Below are the most important elements to enshrine in the five-year workplan, and the elements that should be prioritised in its execution, in CAN’s perspective. This builds on CAN’s previous submission as well as the content and structure of the discussions at the 5th Session of the ExCom held in March 2017. 
 
The first thing that is clear is that the WIM requires more resources.  Much work needs to be done to support the most vulnerable on the frontline of climate impacts - and a voluntary body meeting two to three times a year, with modest support from the UNFCCC Secretariat, whose budget is entirely within the ‘supplementary’ UNFCCC budget is not up to the challenge.  Nor is it in keeping with the importance given to loss and damage in Article 8 of the Paris Agreement.  Parties must recognise this and move to make the WIM fully operational at the upcoming Pacific COP (COP23), including by committing significantly more budget funds - putting it on the same level as other elements of the Paris Agreement.  The WIM ExCom must make this recommendation in their report to the COP and developed countries must step up with more finance for the WIM budget. 
 
The second thing that jumps out is that since the WIM was established in November 2013, miniscule progress has been made on providing finance for loss and damage. Climate risk insurance has seen the most attention, but it applies to only a limited aspect of loss and damage, with other areas of financial needs, such as addressing permanent and irreversible loss and damage, being neglected.  This gap must be addressed urgently.  The ExCom must design their workplan to dedicate as much effort to the area of finance (enhancing action and support) as to the other areas combined. 

In this position, CAN list down suggestions for specific activities that should be included in the 5-Year Workplan. 

 

Region: 
Organization: 

Shorter Is Better

The 2020 deadline for the entry into force of legally binding commitments for all Parties is too late to meet the 2°C target unless pre-2020 ambition can be urgently and equitably increased. To do so, developed countries must step up in the KP and LCA, while the ADP can also help raise ambition in mitigation and the means of implementation.

In this spirit, ECO would like to remind Parties of the numerous benefits of shorter (5 year) commitment periods in the KP. They:

-Enable targets to be based on the best available science and updated frequently

-Reduce concerns about locking in low levels of ambition (and ECO has many of those!! Do I hear 30% anyone??)

-Maintain links with the political accountability cycle, which is typically 4 to 6 years (longer commitment periods make meeting targets someone else’s problem)

-Encourage early action (whereas it is easier to put off action with longer periods – just think: when did you do your homework as a child?)

It is also completely unacceptable for the USA, Canada, Japan, Russia, and any other developed country that reneges on its Convention commitments to take the lead, to remain outside of a legal agreement for the rest of the decade.

Amendments, such as the ability to ratchet-up targets within a commitment period, should be included in the Kyoto amendments, independent of commitment period length. Further amendments could also be made to assuage any concerns about adopting a 5 year CP as well.

Finally, ECO is concerned that 8 years would establish a bad precedent, leading to even longer commitment periods in the future (i.e. 2030) and longer IPCC assessment cycles (i.e. 8-10 years) currently being pushed by some Parties. In other words, 8 years is the “gateway drug” to poor regime architecture long term.

Ours is an ask of all governments – to do more, faster, to save the planet.  The EU and the few other committed developed countries should start by adopting a 5 year commitment period for the Doha amendment.  To quote from Shakespeare’s Henry VI trilogy – Defer no time, delays have dangerous ends.  And we all know how that story ends.

Region: 
Related Newsletter : 

Michelle Medeiros, Greenpeace International in Tianjin

UNFCCC Tianjin / Michelle Medeiros - Greenpeace International - Approaches to Climate Change

Michelle Medeiros from Greenpeace International speaks to OneClimate.net about the different approached to climate change in the US and China

Organization: 
Subscribe to Tag: 5 year plan