MRV Working Group
Transparency of action and support will underpin a credible climate regime. It is critical for building trust between Parties and holding them to account in the fulfillment of their commitments, and is needed to both understand what countries are offering in their INDCs and to track progress of mitigation, means of implementation, and adaptation actions.
CAN therefore believes that Parties should move towards a robust MRV framework, with 2016-2020 acting as a transition period, and that most developing countries will only be able to enhance their efforts with sufficient provision of support; taking into account LDCs.
The CAN Transparency & MRV working group’s advocacy efforts to this end include intelligence gathering, organizing bilateral meetings with Parties, text analysis, and producing ECO articles.
For more information please contact:
Neoka Naidoo, Project90, email@example.com
Yesterday, ECO noted that there are three groups of countries in the legal form negotiations that each need to bring proposals to the table at Durban: the KP developed countries, the non-KP Annex I Parties and the developing countries.
Looking at the new reports being posted on the UNFCCC website, ECO feels some empathy for the reviewers tasked with ‘judging’ the forest management reference levels.
Parties, we have a problem!!!
Parties don’t want to have to account for forestry emissions not caused by humans, like wildfires. Fair enough you might say, but this is being used as another attempt to hide emissions.
ECO just found (under a delegates desk) the draft final decision on LULUCF for Durban. In the interest of full transparency, we reproduce it here.
Land use, land use change and forestry
Acknowledgingthat we have been working on this subject far too long and may have lost all sense of proportion,