Tag: CAN intervention

CAN intervention - COP Agenda Item 5: Article 17 - COP 16 - 1 December 2010

Madam President, Distinguished Delegates,

My name is Yang Ailun from China. I am speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network, a global network of over 500 NGOs.

Today you have an opportunity to establish a process to resolve one of the many vexing problems that is contributing to the inability of these negotiations to make substantial progress towards a Fair, Ambitious and Legally Binding outcome. 

CAN has consistently supported an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol that will establish a second commitment period – thus preserving the legal and institutional structure we have all worked so hard to build. 

At the same time, the COP has a chance to establish a contact group to consider the proposals that have been on the table for over a year now, that reflect different approaches to the legal form of the outcome of the LCA negotiations. 

We urge you to establish a contact group now to consider these proposals in an open and transparent manner with a view to providing greater focus to the negotiations going into Durban next year. 

Without clarity as to where the negotiations are heading, it will be hard to get there.

CAN intervention - CMP Agenda Item 5 - 1 December 2010

Dear Chair,

My name is Irina Stavchuk of the National Ecological Center of Ukraine. I am speaking on behalf of the Climate Action Network.

We are concerned about the carry-over of surplus Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) from the 1st commitment period. Estimates place this surplus at 7 to 11Gt CO2e, or roughly one third of current 2020 emissions reduction targets pledged by Annex I countries. Thus, surplus AAUs have the potential to undermine the environmental integrity and effectiveness of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. 

This problem can be addressed by replacing Paragraph 13 of Article 3. We advocate setting a stringent discount factor, so that the annual average level of emissions carried over is severely restricted.  These limited number of AAUs that have been carried over may only be used domestically in surplus holding countries for compliance in the next commitment period.

Let's be honest: the huge Kyoto surplus in Ukraine and Russia arose from a mistake in the estimate of projected business-as-usual scenario and not due to the implementation of effective climate change mitigation policies.

If the issue of surplus AAUs is not adequately addressed, developed countries can continue on a business-as-usual pathway. CAN questions the continuation of international emissions trading as a mechanism after 2012 if the Kyoto surplus issue is not fully addressed.

There are no excuses for not addressing the issue of surplus AAUs here in Cancun.


CAN Intervention - KP Closing Plenary - 6 Aug 2010

Kyoto Protocol: Closing Plenary
CAN intervention

6th August 2010

Distinguished Delegates,

Tuesday's workshop left no doubt that we are on the way to exceeding the dangerous
threshold of 1.5 degrees if current Annex B pledges become their commitments for the
second period and current loopholes remain.
The projected abatement shortfall is between 7 and 10 Gigatonnes.
If you want to come to a global agreement to avoid dangerous climate change, you will
take any opportunity close this gap.
We hear a lot in this working group about the importance of the other track. To the
Annex B parties assembled here our message is simple. If you wish to secure progress in
the LCA track in December, you must act here. You must commit to the second
commitment period of this hard-won Protocol. You must indicate before the next
negotiating session, your intention to do so. The effect this has on both tracks in these
negotiations will be worth it.
Only by doing so will the other outcomes you seek so intensely, and which the global
community at large seeks to intensely, be achieved.
The Kyoto Protocol is crucial to the world's efforts to successfully limit climate change.


CAN intervention - REDD - COP 13,

Intervention given by Paula Moreira on behalf of CAN in Bali on REDD issues

Thank you for this opportunity, my name is Paula Moreira from IPAM Brazil, The Amazon Institute for Environmental Research

The Climate Action Network International believes that:

  • To avoid the worst impacts of human-induced climate change, average global surface temperature rise needs to be stabilized as far below 2C above pre-industrial levels as possible. Keeping climate change below these levels is critical to the protection of tropical forests.
  • Global emissions must peak and begin to decline in the coming decade and reducing emissions from deforestation has a key role to play in achieving this goal.
  • The question is no longer whether deforestation should be addressed as part of the evolving global climate change regime, but rather, how this can be done most effectively and rapidly, while:
  1. Ensuring equitable and fair incentives to Indigenous and forest people and
  2. Protecting their land rights and customary land.
  • CAN’s objective is to ensure that the development of policies and mechanisms will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation at the national level; fast enough to prevent dangerous climate change. 
  • Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation must:
  1. enhance the environmental effectiveness and improve the integrity of the climate change regime;
  2. be accompanied by deeper and additional cuts in fossil fuel emissions by developed countries after 2012. 
  • Developed countries must provide substantial resources for capacity building and technology transfer for effective monitoring, measurement and implementation of national and conservation legislation. 
  • It is therefore essential that the Bali Mandate includes ambition, content, process and a timetable for negotiating a mechanism that provides incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation.   

CAN Intervention - LCA Opening Plenary - April 9, 2010

Distinguished Delegates, today I speak on behalf of the Climate Action Network.

My name is Raju Chetri. I am from Nepal, and the future of my family and my people depends on the success of these negotiations. Yet I have only one minute to tell you what civil society wants from the LCA track.

The emissions reduction pledges made by many of you before and since Copenhagen, if met, would raise global average temperatures by above three degrees.

What would be the impact of that be on a vulnerable country like Nepal?

How can we survive that impact, when attempts by vulnerable countries to create an insurance mechanism to shield us from disaster have been blocked?

But we are not the only ones that will suffer from climate change. When your grandkids come and ask you where you were, when the future of the planet was decided, could you honestly say you were pushing as hard as you could - to get this issue resolved as soon as possible?

We have had enough of your time-wasting. You know what you need to do this year. Cut pollution so that global emissions peak by 2015. Provide the support that we need to cope with the problem you are exacerbating. Make the decision in Cancun. Do this, and give us back our future.

Thank you.


CAN Intervention - KP Opening Intervention - 1 Jun 2010

Thank you Mr Chair, Distinguished delegates, Clearly, progress is needed on the KP track here in Bonn.

CAN would like to remind delegates that when the KP was first negotiated, Parties agreed targets first, and the following years were spent agreeing the loopholes to accommodate them - loopholes that have contributed to the gigatonnes gap between accounting for emissions and what the atmosphere actually sees.

It is CAN’s long-standing opinion that the underlying rules should be negotiated first, so that the needed reduction target of at-least -40% can be allocated between the Annex B Parties, based on a clear and common understanding of the underlying scope and accounting rules.

Negotiating time in Bonn and for the subsequent intersessionals should therefore be focused on reaching agreement on a number of issues, including:

  • Accounting rules that actually reduce net LULUCF emissions;
  • Modalities for the flexible mechanisms – to avoid double counting of developed country mitigation and financial support obligations, and keep out inappropriate sectors, such as nuclear and CCS
  • The AAU banking loophole
  • The scope of new sources and sectors and other accounting rules – the “other issues”
  • Commitment period length and base year

These issues need to be agreed, but not agreed at any cost. CAN has strong concerns about some of the proposals currently being discussed, especially for LULUCF.

In the LULUCF negotiations, Annex I Parties are proposing to make their forests part of the climate change problem, rather than part of the solution. They are proposing to increase their annual net emissions from forest management by approximately 400 Mt CO2e without even accounting for it. This type of proposal has absolutely no place in a global climate agreement.

At this session, Annex I Parties must stop the accounting games. Annex I Parties must commit to absolute reductions in net anthropogenic emissions from LULUCF and they must protect their forests and other natural ecosystems as reservoirs of greenhouse gases. Parties could then quickly agree to LULUCF rules that transparently meet these two principles.

Like so much in this process, time is not required to fix LULUCF, only political will and ambition.


Subscribe to Tag: CAN intervention