Tag: bunkers

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

Rocking the Boat, Flying to the Moon Palace

Delegates arrive by plane and eat food that’s been shipped by boat – international transport has been part of the COP since the beginning.  And while there are 100% biodiesel buses bringing delegates from the Messe to the Moon Palace, we are a long way (whether by plane or boat) from having international transport running on clean fuel.  
Even if the weak voluntary measures proposed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) are implemented, emissions from transport, if kept unregulated, would amount to 30% of the annual global emissions budget by 2050 to be compatible with a 2° C objective. In the 1.5° C scenario the figure is even worse, it’s above 60%!
But there is some good news too.  There are now ways for global regulation of emissions from international transport to cause no net incidence on developing countries. This guarantees consistency with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities without affecting economic efficiency – something that has been blocking a decision in this arena.
Even better, there are many options available to generate climate finance, some of which could yield upwards of $10 billion USD per year, while also generating funds for technology innovation in the international transport sectors.  That’s another point that has been blocking progress.  And better yet, you guessed it, some of these options can also achieve significant emissions reductions.
If given a clear signal at this COP, regulations under the International Maritime Organization (IMO) could be operationalized as early as 2013. Remember, the closure of the fast-start financing period will be upon us in two short years.  A decision here at Cancun would allow FSF, much of it actually non-additional, to be replaced with real, new and additional finance.  That would be something for delegates to be proud of as they taxi down the runway leaving the Cancun International Airport for well-deserved time off at the end of the year.   
As the High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing (AGF) points out, no single source is going to reach the promised $100 billion USD level by 2020.  ECO therefore reminds developed countries that substantial public financing from you will also be required.  And it is easy to see that financing from international transport should be part of any package.
Sending a clear signal to IMO and ICAO at COP 16 will not only help prevent a finance gap but also take a big step to ensure environmental consistency and climate stabilization.

Related Newsletter : 

Bunkers Has an Important Shipment to Deliver

The final report of the Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing (AGF) that was established by the UN Secretary General early in 2010 may be the most anticipated document in the climate negotiations these days. 

In November, the AGF panel is expected to deliver recommendation on the crucial question of how to generate, at a minimum, $100 billion per year by 2020, providing a crucial part of the groundwork needed for a new and dramatically scaled-up strategy for climate finance as a whole.

One thing is already clear for sure: no single source will serve as silver bullet to achieve that target. A combination of different instruments will have to be found.

As a result, attention is focusing on some of the major pieces.  And there is no question one of those top-tier sources should be revenues generated with regard to emissions from ‘bunker fuels’ (international aviation and maritime fuels). 

An international levy or auction revenues assessed on aviation and shipping would deliver predictable, consistent and additional public funding to support climate actions by non-Annex 1 countries.  If properly structured, this could eventually contribute as much as $40 billion per year.  Without that, it will be nearly impossible to collect the public funds that are needed in aggregate for climate finance.

In assessing various alternative methods, it is clear that in order to avoid carbon leakage it is imperative to take a global sectoral approach.  On the revenue side it is economically reasonable to include all countries.  But for fairness reasons it is crucial to ensure that the respective contributions of developing countries are fully refunded, and there are quite a few detailed proposals for doing so.

By increasing the resources for the new fund through stable contributions from the transport sector, developing countries would benefit from the increased support available for adaptation, REDD and other measures.

So delegates, as you land on your flights back home, remember to transmit this message to your capitals: now is the time to support the development of productive
instruments to generate climate finance from international transport.  It is essential for putting the necessary scale of financial support on the table.

Related Newsletter : 

Agree on finance from bunkers

ECO never tires of pointing out the obvious to delegates, but we promise we do it for your own benefit. So here we go again. What if you could find a way to control the fastest growing sources of emissions and generate billions of dollars of climate finance at the same time. You’d do it, wouldn’t you? ECO respectfully suggests you do just that for international aviation and shipping emissions, right here in Copenhagen.

Parties agree the emissions cannot be attributed to specific countries. The emissions are international, so the mitigation framework must be global. That’s okay, Article 4.1c of the Convention allows for this, but Article 4.3 lays down some conditions. To ensure the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is respected, revenues created from bunker regulation — some estimates suggest US$25-37 billion per year — should be used to defray incremental costs and support climate action in developing countries.  Analysis shows that the impacts on trade would be minimal. Special exceptions can and should be made to exclude routes to and from the SIDS and LDCs, this is fully in the power of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and International Maritime Organization (IMO) to do.

A key priority in the next seven days is ensuring that developing countries receive new, additional and stable finance to support their efforts. As many delegates have put it, no money, no deal! Bunkers can help bridge that gap by creating complementary money in addition to assessed contributions by Annex I countries. What a great double dividend: we achieve climate benefits while generating new climate money (through a levy or the auctioning of emission permits).

Now, consider the alternative. You keep on arguing in circles. Nothing gets decided. And bunker emissions keep on rising, making 2˚C impossible, let alone 1.5˚C. A recent study estimates that they would take up 92% of global emissions in 2050 if the rest of the world reduces emissions by the 80% we need. Further, unilateral approaches are springing up. The EU has already moved to bring aviation into its emissions trading system, and is likely to do the same for shipping in the absence of global action. In the US, bunker fuels are covered in the draft Congressional Bill. Such regional measures still cover developing country operators when they visit these major trading blocs but the money generated will not flow to developing countries. It goes to Annex I governments!

This is a huge missed opportunity. Don’t let it happen. Agree on something good: targets for  the sectors, timelines for ICAO and IMO to deliver at COP 16, and the principle of a co-operative approach that generates revenue for developing countries.


Subscribe to Tag: bunkers