It’s exciting to see so many Annex I Parties participating in the multilateral assessment for their biennial reports. ECO congratulates Parties for participating and thinks the multilateral assessment can be a great place to share lessons learned and experiences with other Parties in a constructive environment. We look forward to hearing your presentations and listening to the Q&A sessions throughout the day.
Since ECO can’t ask questions during these workshops, we thought we would share our questions with you, so here they are:
To all Parties:
Can you provide an update regarding any action taken to strengthen your policy-making process – in particular in relation to public access to information and public participation – so as to improve climate responses and promote policy coherence in the context of progress made towards meeting your commitments under the UNFCCC?
Australia’s Minister for Emissions Reductions states that the country’s growing fossil fuel LNG exports is a “substantial global contribution to be proud of,” as it led to avoided emissions of 148 MT. Can Australia say how it came up with this number for avoided emissions? Is Australia keen to change the accounting framework to take ownership for Scope 3 emissions?
There is a risk that emissions from biomass combustion are not accounted for when importing from countries where forests and deforestation is not counted in their NDCs. As Denmark has the largest imports of wood pellets per person, what does Denmark do to make sure that the drawdown in carbon stocks with harvesting of biomass is accounted for in the producing country at the point where forests are harvested? This must be the minimum demand as the emissions from burning biomass are not counted.
First, congratulations for your impressive net zero 2035 target! This is the kind of leadership we would like to see from the rest of the EU. But when it comes to implementation, ECO has some concerns. Preliminary information from Statistics Finland shows that LULUCF net sink decreased 30% in 2018 compared to the previous year due to increased forest harvesting volumes. In the National Forestry Accounting Plan, Finland has projected an even further increase of harvesting volumes. We are wondering how the projected increase in harvest rates and the planned use of forest biomass is consistent with Finland’s new carbon neutrality target 2035 and what kind of impact it is expected to have on biodiversity?
ECO longs for your new and ambitious targets and additional measures to meet the 1.5°C pathway in 2030 and 2050. ECO doesn’t understand why Japan continues to use coal fire power plants. Why waste the opportunity to become a strong global climate leader? The technical assessment of Japan’s energy policy found that the new coal plants you are planning will “lead to a substantial increase in emissions, an increased risk in lock-in carbon-intensive infrastructure, and underachievement of the NDC” (p. 14). Are there plans to cancel construction of these planned projects, given that their construction ensures Japan’s failure to meet its NDC?