Tag: workshop

CAN Presentation - Observations on NAMA and PLEDGES BY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES - 4 

Guiding Principles

Significantly Enhanced Global Effort by all Parties
Environmental Integrity and Equity
Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities
Developed countries should take the lead on emission reductions and support
Developing country actions taken in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication

To view the full presentation, view pdf above.

Additional Background Information.


Developing Country Mitigation Getting on Track but not Quite There Yet…

Yesterday’s second mitigation workshop put the spotlight on developing country actions. ECO was intrigued that developed countries didn’t use the opportunity to get payback for being grilled the day before on their pledges. This may have been, ECO speculates, because many developed countries are quite aware that their own pledges are pathetically below the 25-40% range, and full of loopholes. It may also be that developed countries have to admit that several of the developing countries, even if they haven’t yet pulled out all the stops, are much closer to their fair share of the global effort than their developed country friends. ECO would welcome such recognition but must insist that the gaping gigatonne gap is there because of a lack of ambition on many sides.

ECO was pleased by greater clarity by South Africa and India on the level of finance needed to implement developing country pledges. This may have helped remind developed countries that, as part of their fair share of the global mitigation effort, they need to support (through finance, technology and capacity building) ambitious mitigation actions by developing countries.

In order to ensure environmental integrity, ECO agrees with several developed country Parties that greater clarity on the assumptions behind business-as-usual baselines would help to bridge the trust deficit between countries. It would also go a long way to building trust to have a process under the UNFCCC to assess overall developed and developing country contributions to our global mitigation goals. ECO supports the Mexican notion that international guidance for establishing such baselines may be a next step to take en route to Durban. The suggestion to convert the long lists of NAMAs into information on expected economy wide emission levels would also be useful, with special treatment for LDCs and SIDS due to their particular circumstances.

Now that the two workshops are over, ECO expects Parties to feed the reports of both workshops into the LCA and KP negotiations. We support the Brazilian proposal that these workshops should have a connection to negotiations around ambition and finance. On the design of upcoming workshops ECO invites Parties to make future presentations more focused on the actual questions that need answers, e.g. assumptions behind pledges or baselines or crystal clear explanations on emissions accounting. This would enable better use of time and allow concrete conclusions to guide negotiations. Workshops could also benefit from more detailed presentations from experts and stakeholders, as well as their inclusion in ensuing discussions.

Next, ECO strongly suggests developed country Parties make submissions before Bonn on their assumptions on LULUCF accounting, AAU banking and access to international credits.

Developing countries should make submissions on the assumptions behind their BAU projections, including information on key factors such as energy use and prices, economic development, population, etc. ECO suggests that the secretariat paper focus on these assumptions.

Workshops in Bonn should then cover potential policy measures developed countries could undertake to go beyond current inadequate pledges and common guidelines for methodologies and assumptions underpinning the definition of BAUs – to get a better understanding of the combined effort of all Parties.

Yet, if it were not already crystal clear, there is one key message that ECO believes the workshops made obvious: Parties urgently need to address the gigatonne gap, and soon. And hey, why not start here in Bangkok, in order to produce substantial progress by Durban.

CAN Intervention - Expert workshop on the Technology Mechanism - 04, Apr, 2011

Expert workshop on the Technology Mechanism
CAN intervention, April 4, 2011

Thank you Mr/Ms Chair,

My name is Manjeet Dhakal from Nepal and I am speaking on behalf of the Climate Action Network.

The technology cooperation mechanism has been discussed for a long time and we now have a basic framework for an institutional structure under the UNFCCC. However, the entire initiative is put at risk by the failure to establish a mechanism for evaluating whether or not proposed technologies are “environmentally sound" and are worthy of support. Essential to any technology evaluation is the full and authentic participation of civil society.

The achievements of the Cancun Agreements were the formation of a Technology Mechanism, including the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN). We urge the delegates to frame the TEC so that it can decide on every activity that will be carried out under the climate technology cooperation framework, and agree that the CTCN will operate under its supervision. Both bodies must ensure balanced representation. There is no doubt that the vulnerable courtiers, particularly LDCs would benefit from CTCs, so we humbly request parties to prioritize these countries while allocating the locations of centers.     

One of the frustrating elements of the Cancun Agreement was that the issue of IPR was thrown into the recycle bin. We urge the parties to put the IPR issue back on the table for constructive discussion.

Parties need to work hard on technology this year to reach a positive conclusion. Along with the work programme discussion scheduled to happen here in Bangkok, the IPR issue also needs space on the agenda.

We urge accountable and transparent reporting of the TEC to the COP and effective means of oversight of the CTCN. This will bring some amount of transparency in the whole process.


CAN Presentation - Observations on Current Developed Country Mitigation Pledges - 3 April 2011

Developed country pledges: Where are parties after
1. Adopted: 2oC goal
2. Agreed: consider moving to 1.5oC
3. Recognised: 25-40% range for developed countries
4. Agreed: scaled-up effort necessary to
• achieve the global goal
• move developed countries into 25-40% range

To view the full presentation, view pdf above.

View additional background information.

Lessons to be taken from the Workshop on developed country QELROs - May 2011

Developed country pledges: Where are Parties after Cancun?
In Cancun Parties agreed on keeping warming below 2°C and agreed to consider moving to
1.5°C. Parties also recognised the 25-40% range for developed countries. At the same time
developed countries recognised that current pledges are too low, that deep cuts are needed
and that mitigation efforts must be ‘scaled-up’ - with developed countries showing
The workshop revealed that there is urgent clarity needed on the following points:
1. Developed countries must clarify what their true emissions will be, i.e. their
assumptions on forests and other land use accounting, the use of carbon offsets and
hot air carry-over, in order to close all loopholes.
2. Developed countries with current pledges below the 25-40% range must explain how
their low pledges
- should be compensated for by other developed countries making higher cuts
- are consistent with their fair share of the globally needed mitigation effort.
3. Developed countries whose pledges are
- below their current Kyoto targets, and/or
- below BAU under existing domestic legislation and targets (e.g. efficiency
must explain how those pledges constitute progress.
4. Developed countries must explain how their 2020 pledges will allow them to
achieve near-zero emissions by 2050.

... to read the full document, view the pdf above.

View the presentation.


Subscribe to Tag: workshop