Tag: Technology

CAN Submission: 2015 Agreement and Post-2020 Actions, November 2014


While pre-2020 actions will determine a strong platform and foundation for the 2015 agreement, Governments are also deliberating on the shape, composition and ambition of the new agreement under work stream 1 of the ADP to come into action in 2020. Below are some of the issues CAN would like to see resolved by Governments at COP 20, in Lima.


Decision text on Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) should include:

  • A process to assess the adequacy and equitability of proposed INDCs in an ex-ante ambition assessment and equity review prior to COP 21.
  • Finance within the scope of INDCs.
  • Adaptation within INDCs, which could be voluntary though countries should be encouraged to put forward their adaptation contribution. Vulnerable developing countries should be supported in their preparation towards developing their contributions.
  • A greater role for civil society, local civil society and other stakeholders should be encouraged and empowered to assist in development of a nations’ INDC and countries should be encouraged to hold national consultations while preparing their INDCs.
  • A stipulation for countries to explain why the submitting country considers its contribution to be both adequate and equitable and therefore all countries should include information on equity indicators (adequacy, responsibility, capabilities, development need, adaptation need).

Decision text on elements of the 2015 agreement should include: 

  • Long term global goals of phasing out all fossil fuel emissions and to phase in a 100% renewable energy future with sustainable energy access for all, as early as possible, but not later than 2050.
  • A collective commitment to shift public support (finance and policy) away from fossil fuels towards climate resilience and universal and fair access to sustainable energy.
  • Establishment of global goals for public finance.
  • An agreement to consider and establish/deploy new instruments and channels to mobilize additional international climate finance from new sources.
  • An agreement to adopt a robust and honest Measuring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system for climate finance.
  • A decision to have an ambitious global adaptation goal within the 2015 agreement. The COP should also encourage and promote national adaptation planning and action in developing countries.
  • COP should adopt a strong 2-year work plan for the Loss and Damage mechanism.
  • A decision to establish a Capacity Building coordinating Body (CBCB) at COP-21 in Paris.
  • An enhanced role for civil society within all mechanisms established under the convention and in the agreements’ implementation and enforcement. Local civil society and other stakeholders should be able to participate actively in compliance and MRV processes within the new agreement.
  • Technology - The COP should recommend to the Advisory Board of the Climate Technology Centre and Network, to take into account the following activities: Providing advice, support and capacity building to developing country, conducting assessments of new and emerging technologies.


CAN Submission: Pre-2020 Ambition, November 2014


The new agreement to be finalized at COP 21 in Paris will focus on post-2020 action. Governments have already put forward their ambition for the pre-2020 phase by committing to the 2nd commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol as well as putting forward mitigation actions. However, the ambition reflected in these commitments and actions leaves a gigaton gap where actions on climate change fall short of what science deems necessary to close this gap not only in mitigation but also in means of implementation (MOI) including finance, technology, and capacity building resources from developed to developing countries. The following are some steps governments need to take in Lima in order to build a strong foundation for the 2015 agreement.


  • COP 20 should urge all countries to revise their pre 2020 mitigation commitments and actions.
  • COP 20 should mandate ADP to develop a 2-year work plan from 2015-2017 with concrete steps on how the work to close the gap would be undertaken and how discussions would be translated into real actions.
  • COP 20 should enhance the TEMs with a new and increased mandate to focus not just on high potential mitigation actions but also on means of implementation for realizing these actions.
  • COP 20 should capture contributions made, assess the adequacy of existing pledges, and discuss a future target level of annual contributions to the GCF to be reached, for example, by 2020.
  • COP 20 should decide that developed countries, and other countries in a position to do so, should continuously increase annual contributions to the GCF to reach the desired target level.
  • Ministers in Lima should agree to collectively draw up a global climate finance roadmap towards 2020 that will include information on (a) the scaling up of public finance through to 2020, (b) types and instruments of finance to be deployed, and (c) channels, sources and sectoral distribution between adaptation and mitigation, with a view to help ensure predictable and scaled up finance and intermediate milestones.
  • Ministers in Lima should reflect on more sustainable funding sources for the adaptation fund. Developed countries should use Lima to pledge at least $80 million to the adaptation fund.
  • The Structured Expert Dialogue (SED) should discuss the IPCC Synthesis report in light of ‘progress made towards achieving the ultimate objective of the convention’.
  • The Joint Contact Group (JCG) for the 2013-2015 Review should conclude that based on scientific evidence, pre 2020 actions as currently committed by governments are inadequate and should be revised.


CAN Submission: Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC), October 2014

Governments at COP19 in Warsaw agreed to “initiate or intensify preparations of their intended nationally determined contributions” (INDC) to meet the ultimate objective of the convention. It was also agreed that governments in ‘a position to do so’ would submit their INDCs by March 2015. At the Climate Summit in New York, the commitment to come forward with INDCs was further reiterated. Even though there is broad agreement on the need to submit INDCs much ahead of COP 21 in Paris, there is still not enough agreement on the shape of these INDCs.

Climate Action Network (CAN) with this submission intends to elaborate its thinking around the INDCs as well as provide solutions towards the continuing disagreements between governments as well as clear the ambiguity around the concept of INDCs. 


Related Event: 

CAN Intervention: ADP Closing Plenary SB40s, not delivered, 15 June, 2014


This written intervention is submitted by the Climate Action Network to the final plenary of ADP2.5.

This session began on a high note with positive signals coming out of two major emitters.  During the session, we heard over 60 countries expressed support for the idea of a phase out of greenhouse gas emissions.  These are encouraging developments, however, as the now inevitable ultimate collapse of sections of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet remind us, all countries need to be going further, faster.  We expect - and we need - more positive signals and firm new commitments coming out of September’s Ban Ki-Moon Summit, COP20, and through to the March 2015 deadline for post-2020 contributions. 

In Lima, Parties will need to agree on the upfront information required for their post-2020 contributions as well as the process by which those contributions should be assessed.  We are concerned that some Parties do not think such an assessment is necessary.  CAN believes warming should be limited to 1.5°C.  The commitments made in Paris must be consistent with such a temperature goal.  We will conduct a civil society review to ensure that proposed contributions - both mitigation and financial - are adequate and equitable.  At a minimum, an official space within the ADP should be created for civil society and research organisation to present the outcomes of their assessments in June 2015; in addition to the question and answer sessions we expect Parties to hold regarding their contributions.  Parties will also need to agree on a deadline for resubmitting contributions prior to COP21 should these prove inadequate.

To enable such an assessment, proposed contributions must be quantifiable, comprehensible, comparable and reproducible and this should be reflected in upfront information requirements.  For developed countries, there must be no backsliding from the Kyoto approach with multi-year carbon budgets based on common metrics.  This type of commitment should be expanded to a broader group of countries, including all in the OECD.  Finance is also a core element of the upfront information requirements.  It is an integral part of fair share for developed countries and, in the post-2020 context, for those with comparable levels of responsibility and capability.  The upfront information requirements should also include an agreed list of equity indicators which Parties should use to explain why their proposed contributions represent an ambitious and adequate contribution to the glob­al climate challenge.  To avoid locking in low levels of ambition, all contributions must have a common end date of 2025, while Parties should also indicate their emissions pathways over the longer term in 2030, 2040 and an ultimate phase out of fossil fuel emissions in 2050.

In Paris, Parties have to commit to phasing out fossil fuel emissions and phasing in a 100% renewable energy future for all by mid-century.  In order to achieve these goals, we need to act now.  Lima must capture progress under workstream two and Parties must agree to concrete measures to reduce emissions.  The technical expert meetings should continue beyond 2014 until we have closed the gap.

We look forward to a productive session in October.  Much remains to be done to ensure ambitious outcomes in Lima, Paris and beyond.

Thank you Co-Chairs.



Penny wise, pound foolish

We applaud the ADP Co-chairs’ tradition of emphasising openness and transparency as a key part of the party-driven ADP process. But now, it seems that this tradition might be under threat, with the Contact Group meetings limiting space for observers.  This alone was shocking enough, but given the level of interest in these critical meetings across the world, ECO was flabbergasted to be told that “due to budget constraints” the ADP Contact Group meetings won't be webcast.

Let’s get something clear. When a session is webcast, everyone with an internet connection and an interest can follow our work online. It’s real-time transparency. When it’s webcast and made available on demand, it’s full transparency.

The Co-chairs need only look as far as the system adopted by the Technology Executive Committee, which offers convenient real-time access to their sessions as well as archiving. Anyone can access them.

The UNFCCC budget should ensure that these important proceedings are webcast. To get the ball rolling, ECO offers to put up the first 500 Euros. Over to you, governments. 

Related Newsletter : 

Post-2020 contributions -- information needed!

ECO appreciates the efforts made by several countries in their submissions this month to address the issue of the types of information Parties should submit with their initial post-2020 nationally determined mitigation contributions. A paper launched this week by the World Resources Institute outlines how this information could vary for countries whose contributions are in the form of economy-wide GHG mitigation goals, versus for those countries putting forward intensity-based or sectoral contributions, policy-based contributions, or contributions consisting of discrete projects or NAMAs.

Clarity and transparency of contributions is important to:

- Build confidence in the robustness of the economic, technological, and policy assumptions underlying the proposed national contributions;

- Enable comparison with other Parties;

- Improve the assessments of individual country and collective global emissions reductions resulting from the proposed contributions; and

- Foster a constructive dialogue amongst Parties on the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and how they translate into the level of ambition and effort undertaken by each Party.

ECO underlines the need for Parties to make substantial progress on this issue at the next Bonn session in June, as many countries are already starting to prepare their national contributions. The earlier that Parties have clarity on what information is going to be expected of them, the better.

ECO also notes that most of the discussion thus far has centred on information requirements for mitigation contributions. To have any chance of meeting the collective level of ambition needed on post-2020 emissions reductions, developing countries will need to take ambitious mitigation actions with enhanced international climate finance, technology transfer, and capacity building. Developed countries must also put forward their finance contributions to facilitate this ambitious action by developing countries.

If there is not greater clarity and confidence soon about the expected magnitude of such support in the post-2020 period, developing countries will understandably be reluctant to inscribe potential additional emissions reduction actions in the final agreement in Paris.

It’s essential that in June, Parties not only deepen the discussion started here this week but that they also start to intensively engage on the information that they (in particular, developed countries) will need to provide on the finance, technology transfer, and capacity-building elements of their intended national contributions. 

Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

Transparency of Support for Technology Transfer

ECO is a fan of transparency, and we’re encouraged by the general agreement on the need for more of it on mitigation here in Bonn. Parties need to start considering the unique needs of transparency for support– particularly to enable the transfer of environmentally sound technologies.

This discussion opens the opportunity to move beyond standard MRV questions. Instead, we can assess whether support ensures that all Parties are enabled to participate to their fullest extent? And are supported technologies respectful of communities and planetary boundaries?

Such questions reflect the reality that full participation of developing countries is needed to ensure emissions reductions at the required scale, and that support is needed to enable this participation. This would also be jeopardised by the introduction of technologies that put sustainable development at risk, threaten biodiversity or are undesirable from a cultural perspective though.


How can these pitfalls be avoided? Complete transparency.

To achieve this, there must be a comprehensive set of quantitative and qualitative indicators that can appropriately reflect relevant concerns. These should include indicators to measure the participation of countries in the full variety of technology transfer arrangements from bi- to multilateral or business-to-business and the list goes on.

Transparency also demands the establishment of a mechanism that stakeholders can demand redress in the case that climate action is impacting their property or livelihood. This must be accompanied by capacity building and technology assessment tools that could be used to determine the most suitable national fit.

It’s a big job, but there’s no alternative if given that we need to use technology to enable mitigation action without causing other environmental or social problems.

Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

Renewable energy, let’s do better

ECO spent yesterday, excitedly, following the renewable energy (RE) workshop. There’s a lot of activity in different countries and a global recognition about RE’s current and future potential. 

Presentations from various experts made it clear that this potential is not being fully utilised though. We can double the realisation of RE globally by 2030, as pointed out by IRENA, but there is lack of will. Social gains from RE, like jobs and increased access to electricity, make the need to deploy it at scale an obvious approach. 

What was missing yesterday were the concrete actions and decisions that the UNFCCC can take to act on this this potential. Maybe this lack of discussion came down to a scheduling issue, but with limited time ahead Parties should always bear this question in mind. We await the support of UNFCCC-led action is needed to accelerate the deployment of RE if we’re to close the gap.

Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

ECO’s 1-2-3 for Parties at this ADP

Has the extreme winter weather that’s gripped North America, the devastating flooding in the UK or the [insert your own top-of-mind climate-related disaster here] made a case for more ambitious action with you and your Party yet? If not, the release of Working Group II’s 5th assessment report on climate impacts at the end of this month surely will. ECO has long said 2014 must be the year of ambition, so let’s start off on the right foot and make the most of our five days together in Bonn.

There are 3 tasks this ADP session must deliver on to ensure that a draft text is developed by Lima and that countries come to the Ban Ki-moon Summit with ambitious pledges for Paris to close the gap in the near-term.

EIN: Agree on the structure and process for developing a draft negotiating text for this year. We all know what building blocks will form the basis of the deal in Paris — mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology and capacity building — but now it’s time to get into the specifics. It’s imperative that critical elements, like the legal architecture for the 2015 agreement including the compliance regime; an MRV framework that will ensure transparency and environmental integrity; a review mechanism to ratchet up ambition over time; and progress on fleshing out the loss and damage mechanism agreed in Warsaw, not fall off the table. These specifics won’t come out of the plenaries, we need to move to contact groups. There’s no further time to lose here in Bonn. 

DOS: Determine the information that should be included when countries come forward with their proposed post-2020 commitments. Countries have already started work on this front and this information needs to be agreed upon at the June ADP meeting. Waiting until Lima will give Parties little time to reflect on what’s required. For developed countries, the process is rather straightforward, as there can be NO backtracking from Kyoto-style commitments and the need to provide detailed information on their financial commitments and other support for developing country actions. ALL countries must justify how their proposed commitments align with adequacy and equity principles. ECO laments that in Warsaw, Parties couldn’t agree to develop a comprehensive ex-ante equity reference framework. Here in Bonn, Parties can start to remedy this failure, by agreeing to justify their proposed commitments based on a basket of equity indicators. Discussions must also continue on a robust review process to assess the collective and individual adequacy and fairness of proposed commitments, with the final decision on the review process will have to be made at COP 20 in Lima.  

TROIS: Ambition, ambition, ambition.  The focus in Workstream 2 on renewable energy and energy efficiency at this session is a positive start.  The science is clear that a phase out of fossil fuels is necessary, however, the road to a renewable energy future need not (and cannot) wait until then. Additionally, ECO looks forward to preparations for the June Ministerial review of mitigation targets, which will provide developed countries with an important opportunity to put forward the more ambitious emissions reduction targets that are required to help close the huge gigatonnes gap. Developing countries too can discuss what they can do to enhance the ambition of their pre-2020 actions.

By Acting ambitiously on renewable energy and energy efficiency; Developing the structure and process for elaborating a draft text; and Providing clarity on the information needed for proposed commitments; here in Bonn, the ADP can be worthy of its name.

Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 

Cheers to the Technology Executive Committee!

ECO has noticed with great appreciation that the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) is continuing to move towards greater transparency. Ever since its inception 2 years ago, the TEC has laid the foundation for transparency with their adoption of webcasting and inclusion of observers in thematic dialogues. In the meeting that just ended last week, the TEC outshone its own record of inclusiveness by inviting BINGO; RINGO; ENGO; and IGO observers to take part in many of the thematic task forces. To boot, the secretariat will begin to post notes of the meetings on the TT: Clear website.
ECO toasts the TEC members and secretariat, especially Chair Gabriel Blanco and Vice-Chair Kuni Shimada, for their insightful leadership. Congratulations TEC - cheers to you! 
Other thematic bodies, you’re invited to follow suit.

Related Event: 
Related Newsletter : 


Subscribe to Tag: Technology