In CAN’s view, discussions about the future of the flexible mechanisms including the consideration of new project activities should be firmly grounded in an analysis of their performance so far. So far, the CDM has failed to meet its dual objectives of supporting cost-effective climate change mitigation and sustainable development in developing countries. Yet, even when accepting some of the well-known shortcomings of project-based CDM mechanisms, CCS is highly likely to fail most of the requirements in this specific offset framework. Therefore despite the abovementioned CMP decision, CAN does not believe including CCS in CDM is an appropriate way forward. Therefore this submission sets out reasons for CAN´s opposition to the inclusion of CCS in CDM and subsequently addresses the different issues referred in paragraph 3 of the CMP Decision It should be noted, however, that this submission does not refer to use of various CCS technologies outside the CDM and for general mitigation purposes both in developed and developing nations.
Tag: Kyoto Protocol
8 December 2010
Cancun, Mexico – Japan earned a 1st place Fossil for its continued efforts to kill the
Kyoto Protocol by preventing a second commitment period from moving forward.
The United States, fresh off its first, and 1st place, Fossil in Cancun yesterday, earned
its first 2nd and 3rd place Fossils for slowing technology transfer and developing
country adaptation support.
The Fossils as presented read:
"The United States wins the 3rd place Fossil. Congratulations US - Technology
transfer has been a core commitment since the beginning of the Convention, and
we’ve already wasted too much time discussing how to do it. A workable proposal is
finally on the table and everyone else is willing to go with it and establish the new
technology mechanism here in Cancun. But yesterday, you made it clear that in your
view, the Parties should only ‘consider’ establishing it.
That’s strange, given that the Copenhagen Accord clearly states that leaders agreed to
‘establish a Technology Mechanism’, ‘operational immediately’. We are surprised
you are going back behind what heads of state already agreed to and try to renegotiate
a deal struck a deal struck among world leaders. For the last year, most parties in the
technology negotiations have been working hard to answer the remaining questions
and a lot of progress was made in Cancun. While everyone else is being flexible, your
obstructionism is blocking any progress.
The US championed the need for a technology center and network and you are
developing some regional center pilots, so why the heartburn on the proposal on the
table? Concerns by US clean tech companies about being under a burdensome and
bureaucratic UN body are misinformed; what our warming world needs is precisely
what a multilateral mechanism can deliver: coordinated planning and implementation
to speed-up and scale-up the what poor countries and communities need to transition
quickly to a low-emissions future."
"The USA wins the 2nd place Fossil for delaying agreement on the establishment of
an Adaptation Committee, which is demanded by developing countries to improve
coherence and coordination of adaptation under the Convention. The US continues to
insist on clarification of the functions and asked in Cancun whether this could not be
dealt with under SBSTA, an approach which they had rejected some years ago when
it was on the SBSTA agenda. The Convention process requires a dedicated
institutional arrangement on adaptation which can initiate further action, not limited to
technical advice. This function cannot be fulfilled by existing institutions outside the
"The 1st place Fossil goes to Japan. Although the Minister arrived on Sunday, Japan
has not yet changed its position of rejecting to put its target for the second
commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which virtually kills the future of the
Kyoto Protocol. Despite the plea from all around the world, even in the midst of the
isolation (with hidden allies consisting of Russia and Canada), Japan's inflexibility
endangers the whole discussion of the future framework at CANCUN, which the earth
About CAN: The Climate Action Network is a worldwide network of roughly 500
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working to promote government and
individual action to limit human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable
About the fossils: The Fossil of the Day awards were first presented at the climate
talks in 1999 in Bonn, initiated by the German NGO Forum. During United Nations
climate change negotiations (www.unfccc.int), members of the Climate Action
Network (CAN), vote for countries judged to have done their 'best' to block progress
in the negotiations in the last days of talks.
Over 200 civil society organisations today launch a call for a fair climate fund to be established this week in Cancun.
As ministers arrive to face the vital political challenges around the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, sufficient political time and energy must be spared to ensure substantive outcomes on issues that really matter to those suffering from climate change’s savage impacts.
As the Civil Society Call makes clear, poor people are losing out twice. They are being hardest hit by a crisis they did least to cause, but the are not being served by climate-related funds that should be helping them.
Most existing funds have benefited just a handful of developing countries, privileging mitigation over adaptation, and offering little scope for the meaningful participation of affected communities, especially women.
There is an urgent need to establish a new fair global climate fund to help developing countries build resilience to the impacts of climate change, protect their forests, and adopt low-carbon development pathways. Public finance is vital to meet these needs, while carbon markets are proving inadequate or inappropriate. To be truly equitable and effective, the new fund must mark a clear shift in the management of global flows of climate finance that delivers for poor people.
Ministers arriving this week must do more than just start a process to establish a new fund – they must take political decisions on the nature of that fund. At a minimum, they must ensure a fund which is:
- Established and designed under the UNFCCC.
- Gives equitable representation to developing countries,
- Ensures consideration is given to gender balance in its makeup and civil society and affected communities have a strong voice.
- Guarantees at least 50% of the resources of the fund are channelled to adaptation.
- Allows direct access to funds by developing countries.
- Ensures that vulnerable communities, especially women and indigenous communities, participate fully in decisions on uses and monitoring of finance at national level.
The establishment of a fair global climate fund is long overdue. Ministers, don’t waste this opportunity to chart mark a new course for global finance governance that puts poor people at its heart.
Madam President, Distinguished Delegates,
My name is Yang Ailun from China. I am speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network, a global network of over 500 NGOs.
Today you have an opportunity to establish a process to resolve one of the many vexing problems that is contributing to the inability of these negotiations to make substantial progress towards a Fair, Ambitious and Legally Binding outcome.
CAN has consistently supported an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol that will establish a second commitment period – thus preserving the legal and institutional structure we have all worked so hard to build.
At the same time, the COP has a chance to establish a contact group to consider the proposals that have been on the table for over a year now, that reflect different approaches to the legal form of the outcome of the LCA negotiations.
We urge you to establish a contact group now to consider these proposals in an open and transparent manner with a view to providing greater focus to the negotiations going into Durban next year.
Without clarity as to where the negotiations are heading, it will be hard to get there.
When leadership was needed most, the home country of the Kyoto Protocol made a destructive statement in the KP plenary. It rejected a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol by saying ‘Japan will not inscribe its target under the KP on any conditions or under any circumstances’.
‘Preferring’ a single-treaty approach is one thing, but aggressively denying the future of Kyoto is quite another. The statement upset many Parties and created an unconstructive atmosphere.
This COP was supposed to be the place to rebuild trust among parties, but Japan’s move not only could degrade trust but even potentially wreck the negotiations.
At a time when the world is seeking to strengthen the climate regime, Japan’s hard stance, in the guise of getting the US and China to make mitigation commitments, risks leaving us with no deal at all.
A large majority of Parties have said they want a legally binding outcome. It’s time they hold firm to the legally binding treaty that was so hard-won in those late nights in Kyoto. Japan should honour the basic framework that all countries agreed in Bali, which is for developed country Parties to continue their mitigation obligations under the KP, for a legally binding agreement under the LCA track to include comparable efforts for the US, and for the developing countries to undertake nationally appropriate mitigation actions that are supported by finance, technology and capacity building.
Does Japan really want to be known for the burial of the Protocol that was born in one of its beautiful cities?
ANNEX 1 COUNTRY SEEKING TREATY FOR NO-STRINGS ATTACHED HOLIDAY ROMANCE IN MEXICO.
Currently struggling with a 13-year relationship, just looking for a good time in the Cancun sun.
Likes: excellent food, movies, comic books, robots and big industry. Dislikes: commitment, cooperation, compliance, science and targets.
If interested please email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Next Thursday, European environment ministers will discuss whether the EU should upgrade its 2020 target to 30% unilaterally. ECO says yes! And while you are at it, make sure to meet it domestically, so that any offsetting comes on top of 30%.
While several environment ministers have already indicated their support, others are holding back. But let’s face it, almost everybody expects the EU is going to move to 30% anyway. The more time they waste discussing the matter, the more time they lose reaping the economic advantages.
For two years now, the EU has not budged from its conditional pledge to increase to 30% if comparable efforts are made by other major economies. But this position has diminishing relevance.
Several studies, including from the European Commission, clearly show that EU has good reason to increase ambition right now. The most obvious is that they have
already nearly reached the 20% target, a full 10 years before 2020!
According to the European Environment Agency, the EU’s 2009 emissions stood at approximately 17.3% below 1990 levels. Although the economic crisis is part of the reason, there is no doubt that most of the effort has already happened.
Second, consider the low-carbon race. China became the biggest wind market in the world last year. If EU leaders want their green industry to remain at the forefront, they need to give their economies clear direction.
Third, a more ambitious emissions target would generate billions of euros of additional income for governments, as the majority of industries will have to buy emissions permits under the emissions trading scheme. Funneling this money to climate measures will accelerate EU’s low-carbon development and trigger much needed long-term financing for developing countries. And independent research shows that more ambitious climate policies won’t result in mass relocation of industries outside of the EU.
With smart policies, increasing the EU’s target will be cost neutral and reduce its foreign fuel dependence, cut energy bills in the longer run and reduce public health costs. So, all in all, the perfect moment for going to 30% is now!
You’ve heard about all the trouble with the logging loophole in LULUCF. But there’s another important agenda on emissions from non-forest lands under the Kyoto Protocol.
Several ideas such as mandatory accounting for cropland management and grazing land management, and the introduction of a new activity category of wetland management, have languished with very little discussion. Yet Parties seem to think they are on the downhill run wrapping up LULUCF.
Emission from biofuels (processing crops and burning them as transport fuels) also risks being mostly ignored at a time when they are expected to grow rapidly as an alternative to fossil fuels.
There are issues with data availability and accuracy in accounting for these activities. But that is no excuse for deferring action in the second commitment period. One thing that can be done is to use a hotspots approach, concentrate MRV efforts on identifying the lands with the most significant sources of emissions, and estimate these activities in the most accurate and practicable way whilst commencing on a SBSTA program to introduce more comprehensive accounting.
The new rules could well make a huge amount of forest management emissions vanish through a loophole, but even worse, also fail to capture significant emissions arising from the other land use activities.
There is still time to construct a complete agenda for LULUCF rules with integrity for the next commitment period, but there is not a moment more to lose.