Tag: Warsaw

CAN Submission on the Scope of the Technical Paper Exploring Sources of Support for Loss and Damage and Modalities for Accessing Support, February 2018

The prevalence of extreme weather events and climate impacts experienced all over the world in 2017 - hurricanes in the Caribbean, heavy floods in South Asia, floods and droughts in Africa, droughts and rising sea levels in the Pacific, changing rainfall including flooding in South America - make it very clear that we have no time to waste.  The most vulnerable people in the frontlines of climate change require finance for loss and damage urgently. 

It is essential that the review of the Warsaw Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM) at the 25th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 25) in 2019 results in the full operationalisation of the WIM. This will be achieved by establishing a finance arm, with modalities for channelling and accessing loss and damage finance by the 2019 review from a clear menu of options developed by the WIM and the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF). We cannot lose more time in delaying meaningful discussions with the rapidly increasing and worsening climate change impacts that are being felt across the globe. CAN urges all countries to proactively and positively engage in these discussions.

The WIM Executive Committee (ExCom) and the SCF will need to undertake additional work over 2018 and 2019 to develop and discuss the concepts necessary to achieve this.  Ample focus must be given to this task, comparable to all other elements of their respective workplans.  It is essential for the Subsidiary Bodies and the COP to consider progress on loss and damage finance at each meeting.

Region: 
Organization: 

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: 

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: 

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: 

Pages

Subscribe to Tag: Warsaw