Tag: Flexible Mechanisms

CAN Submission - LCA Agenda Proposal - April 2011



This process must deliver concrete action to ambitiously address the climate change challenge. We need an agenda and a work plan to deliver on that by Durban.
The agenda discussions are important because they frame what countries want to, and will be able to, achieve in Durban.

CAN agrees with the sentiment expressed by many countries in the LCA opening last night, including EU, Australia, Norway, AOSIS, Singapore, Egypt, Chile on behalf of a number of Latin American countries, Pakistan, Philippines and China that we should use 2011 to BOTH implement the Cancun Agreements AND fill in the gaps that clearly resolve the issues that address the challenge of climate change (gigatonne gap, finance sources and others) that remain. This is easily possible by merging the various proposals for agendas as outlined below .
The priority issues for 2011 are italicised under the relevant heading.  Where time allows, additional issues can be addressed in 2011. Issues that parties have agreed to address in other agendas (such as SB) should be focused there.

1.    Opening of the session

2.    Organisational matters
a.    Adoption of the agenda
b.    Organisation of the work of the session

3.    Preparation of an outcome to be presented to the Conference of the Parties for adoption at its seventeenth session to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action now, up to and beyond 2012.

3.1 a shared vision for long-term cooperative action
    a) Global goal for emission reductions and global peaking
[Item 3 of the supplementary provisional agenda]

3.2 Mitigation
a) Registry
[Item 7 of the supplementary provisional agenda]

3.2.1 Mitigation commitments or actions by developed country Parties
a) Work programme on enhanced measurement, reporting and verification for Parties included in Annex I to the Convention
[Item 5 of the supplementary provisional agenda]

b) Quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets to be implemented by Parties included in Annex I to the Convention.
[Item 4bis of the supplementary provisional agenda]

c) Options and ways to increase the level of ambition of developed country Party economy-wide emission reduction targets
[Item 17(c) of the supplementary provisional agenda]

3.2.2 Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties
a) Work programme on enhanced measurement, reporting and verification for Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention
[Item 6 of the supplementary provisional agenda]

b) Nationally appropriate mitigation actions to be implemented by Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention.
[Item 4ter of the supplementary provisional agenda]

3.2.3 Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries
a) Financing options for the full implementation of mitigation action in the forest sector
[Item 8 of the supplementary provisional agenda]

3.2.4 Cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specifc actions, in order to enhance the implementation of article 4.1.c of the Convention

3.2.5 Various approaches to enhance cost effectiveness of mitigation actions

Combined sub-items for 3.2.4 and 3.2.5:
a) Market-based and non-marked-based mechanisms
[Item 11 of the supplementary provisional agenda]
b) Agriculture
[Item 17(d) of the supplementary provisional agenda]

3.3 Enhance action on adaptation
    a) Adaptation Committee
[Item 4 of the supplementary provisional agenda]

3.4 Enhanced action on technology development and transfer
Arrangements to fully operationalize the Technology Mechanism
[Item 12 of the supplementary provisional agenda]

3.5 Capacity Building
[Item 13 of the supplementary provisional agenda]

3.6 Enhanced action on the provision of financial resources and investment
a)    Standing Committee
[Item 9 of the supplementary provisional agenda]

b)    Scaled-up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding to developing countries,in accordance with paragraph 97 of the Cancun Agreements
[Item 9 of the supplementary provisional agenda]

c) Review of information provided by developed countries on the resources provided to fulfil fast-start finance commitments
[Item 17(b) of the supplementary provisional agenda]

4.    Review: further definition of its scope and development of its modalities
[Item 14 of the supplementary provisional agenda]

5.    Legal options for an agreed outcome with the continued mandate of the AWGLCA
[Item 16 of the supplementary provisional agenda]

6.    Other matters
a) International aviation and maritime transport;
[Item 17c of the supplementary provisional agenda]

b) any other matters

7.    Work Programme 2011
CAN expects Bangkok to agree a detailed work programme for 2011, containing
-    the number of sessions this year;  
-    What issues will be dealt with and when;
-    Number, timing and content of technical workshops;
-    Invitations for submissions from Parties and observers;
-    Technical papers, etc.

8.    Report of the session

Bioenergy Is Not A ‘GET OUT OF JAIL FREE’ Card

Bioenergy had a starring role in this week’s workshop on developed country emission reduction targets. The theme of many parties was reducing energy sector emissions by substituting bioenergy for fossil fuels.

At last, Mexico sounded a note of caution in their presentation in the workshop on NAMAs, pointing out that reliance on biofuels is difficult to do sustainably, can be harmful in terms of conservation and REDD targets, and can impact on agriculture

Bioenergy - a clean alternative?

Bioenergy leaves a carbon footprint which is largely ignored when proposed as an alternative. This is an unacceptable situation as we face exponential growth in this energy source which is being justified in the name of addressing climate change.

The worry arising from tremendous expansion of bioenergy production from land and forests is not just the unintended consequences of constraining food supply and the potential to destroy biodiversity, as important as those are. There are also problems arising directly from the failure to address deficiencies of accounting rules in the KP.

ECO is compelled to point out that although the use of bioenergy is often claimed to be carbon neutral, this is rarely so. The emissions released from producing and burning bioenergy can be much larger than those for fossil fuels, especially when converted to liquid fuels or where grown on emissive peat soils, as shown in the chart.

Developed countries:

Actual emissions, fake accounting

Equally rare is accounting for the actual emissions. Yes, it’s that old problem – the LULUCF rules – once again!

Under existing IPCC guidance, bioenergy is accounted as carbon neutral when it is combusted in the energy sector, as it is a renewable energy source. But the crucial presumption underpinning this is that emissions associated with the provision of bioenergy have been accounted for in their sector of origin (i.e., the land use and forestry sector) in their country of origin and netted out against carbon sequestration in growing the bioenergy crop in the first place.

In developed countries this assumption founders on the failure of the LULUCF rules to mandate accounting for either forestry or cropland management. Currently, many parties choose not to do this. There isn’t even a proposal on the table that all parties must account for all LULUCF emissions including cropland management, in which case parties won’t include those activities in their reporting when they are emissive. In addition, the proposal for projected reference levels for forest management in the KP second commitment period opens a new kind of loophole, and this is a very concerning development also for accounting bioenergy emissions specifically.

CAN Intervention - Opening KP - 5 April 2011

Opening LWG-KP Plenary – Bangkok
CAN intervention, April 5, 2011

Thank you Mr. Chair,

My name is Sven Harmeling. I’m speak on behalf of the Climate Action Network.
The KP track’s work this year can play an important role in narrowing the gigatonne gap.        According to UNEP, this gap could be up to 9 Gigatonnes in 2020 globally, equivalent to the combined annual emissions of China and Russia. CAN urges higher ambition than that assumed by UNEP, so sees an even bigger chasm between the pledges and needed action.

To help close the gap, first, Parties need to address the loopholes we heard about in        Sunday’s workshop, used perversely by some to stall their own low-carbon transformation.

o LULUCF rules should increase accountability and such that these sectors deliver        emissions reductions.  This means:
•    Not using questionable projected reference levels but using historical reference levels.
•    Not hiding emissions but accounting for all emissions, including other land uses such as cropland and grazing land management, and rewetting and drainage.

o Rules for any new market and non market mechanisms shouldn’t diminish already low        levels of ambition and must not allow double counting, ensuring additional emissions reductions and funding flows.
o  Rules are needed to minimise environmental damage from hot air.
Once these loopholes are closed, Parties need to increase their aggregate pledges so that they add up to more than 40% - top end of the 25-40% range that you acknowledged in Cancun. This is needed to put us on a pathway with a reasonable probability of achieving the well-below 2C goal, and keep the 1.5C goal in reach.
Additionally, CAN would like to take this opportunity to remind Parties of some of the        quite-literally vitally important elements of the KP architecture that need to be conserved and developed post-2012,  namely its:
o    long-term viability as a framework that can be appropriately updated for each commitment period;
o    aggregate goal for developed countries, allowing appropriate consideration of the science;
o    legally-binding, economy-wide, absolute emissions reduction targets;
o    common accounting, MRV and compliance.

We urge Parties not to throw away the good work of the last 14 years, and to commit to a second          commitment period in Durban.

ECO’s Agenda for Adoption

3. (TOO NARROW) Global goal for emission reductions and global peaking.

Expand this item to include a discussion on an equitable effort sharing agreement as this will allow Parties to agree on ambitious and science-based long-term goals by Durban.

3bis. (CURRENTLY MISSING) Mitigation.

While the workshops have been useful in clarifying assumptions (and clarity is an important first step), action must follow. There must be space on the negotiating agenda to feed-in and build on information and recommendations that comes out of the workshops in order to close the gigatonne gap by Durban.  The Secretariat’s technical paper and further submissions from Parties will also help. The scope of this agenda item should include the AOSIS proposal to examine options and ways to increase the level of ambition.

4. (OPERATIONALIZE) Adaptation Committee.

50% of future resources in the Green Climate Fund should be earmarked for adaptation.

5. (OPERATIONALIZE) Work programme on enhanced measurement, reporting and verification for Parties included in Annex I to the Convention.

5bis. (CURRENTLY MISSING) Compliance by developed countries with their commitments.

Strong domestic enforcement of commitments is always welcome but there must be an international minimum that ensures that all countries fulfill their international obligations.  This is especially helpful when there is no domestic law to speak of (here’s looking at you: USA, Canada, Australia....).

6. (OPERATIONALIZE) Work programme on enhanced measurement, reporting and verification for Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention.


8. (RESOLVE) Financing options for the full implementation of mitigation action in the forest sector.

9. (OPERATIONALIZE) Standing Committee.

9bis (CURRENTLY MISSING) Innovative Sources of Financing.

ECO supports the African Proposal to urgently scale-up new, additional, predictable and adequate funding to support the mitigation and adaptation activities of developing countries.  A key way to ensure such funding levels will be met is to identify and implement innovative sources, such as levies on international transport.

9ter. (CURRENTLY MISSING) Review of information provided by developed countries on their fast-start finance commitments.

ECO supports the LDC Proposal and reminds developed countries that their FSF reports are due in May!!

10. (REMEMBER KYOTO) Market-based and (FOCUS ON THE ‘F’s) non-market-based mechanisms.

Time is of the essence and thus Parties are reminded that any markets developed under the LCA must COMPLEMENT, and not undermine, those under the Kyoto Protocol.  These mechanisms should be based on large segments of the economy of the host countries (rather than being project based)and must be as strict as (or stricter, as we have learned some valuable lessons with KP mechanisms) the Kyoto rules to ensure environmental integrity.  On the non-market side, Parties should focus on phasing out HFCs as well as eliminating fossil fuel subsidies.

10bis. (CURRENTLY MISSING) International aviation and maritime transport

Countries should resume their negotiations on how international aviation and maritime can contribute to global emissions reductions and innovative sources of finance.  After all we need all the “gigatonnes” we can get!

11. (TOO NARROW) Arrangements to fully operationalize the Technology Mechanism.

Ignoring the tough issues, namely IPRs, does not make them go away (if this were so, the battle to stop climate change would have been won long ago!)  Commissioning a study on whether or not and how IPRs are a barrier to technology transfer, followed-up by a technical workshop would go a long way this year in advancing the discussion.

12. Capacity-building.


Preparing for a robust review in 2013-2015 which will enable Parties to go even further in their mitigation and adaptation efforts is crucial.  This item must remain on the agenda and significant time devoted to it.

14. Issues relating to Parties with economies in transition and Parties with special circumstances.

15. (OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE) Legal options.

In 2010, it was a struggle to even get legal issues discussed in the LCA. In 2011, it’s officially on the agenda and needs to be ever present in the discussion, as it is the end goal after all. On the Kyoto side, their legal issues group needs to resolve any issues related to the provisional application of amendments as this is now the only way to ensure there is no gap between the first and second commitment periods.

CAN Submission: Views on enhancing the cost-effectiveness of, and promoting, mitigation actions, February 2011

In this submission the Climate Action Network International looks at a non-exhaustive list of policies and measures which are aimed at directly or indirectly reducing or mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. For each of  the measures a short analysis will be provided together with an assessment of their cost-effectiveness. The types of measures discussed are placed under the categories financial instruments or regulatory approaches, both in a broad sense.

CAN Submission: Views on new market-based mechanisms, February 2011

CAN welcomes the opportunity to respond to the invitation to present views on the establishment of new market-based mechanisms (decision -/CP.16, paragraphs 80-82).

CAN strongly believes that any new market-based mechanisms must take into account and build upon the lessons learned from the operation of existing market-based mechanisms during the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol to ensure the environmental integrity of any new mechanisms as well as the overall UNFCCC regime.


Subscribe to Tag: Flexible Mechanisms