8/4/2019 ECO 2 - October 2nd

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eco-2-october-2nd 1/2

CLIMATENEGOTIATIONSPANAMAOCTOBER’11NGONEWSLETTER

ECOhasbeenpublishedbyNon-GovernmentalEnvironmentalGroupsatmajorinterna:onalconferencessincetheStockholmEnvironment

Conferencein1972.ECOisproducedco-opera:velybytheClimateAc:onNetworkattheUNFCCCmee:ngsinPanama,October2011.

ECOemailadministra:on@climatenetwork.org–ECOwebsitehp//climatenetwork.org/eco-newsleers–Editorial/Produc:onJoshuaDarrach

2October

TheRising

Issue

ISSUENO2VOLUMECXXIXFREEOFCHARGE

Parties, we have a problem!!!Global CO2 emissions did a full swing 

after the recession, growing more than 5%in 2010, according to a report publishedl a s t w e e k b y t h e N e t h e r l a n d sEnvironmental Protection Agency. This isthe highest increase in the last two decadesand only fuels the climate crisis. Withoutaccounting for the land-use sector, globalCO2 emissions reached 33 billion tonnes,a 45% increase since 1990, driven mostlyby a 7.6% increase in coal consumption.This means the world now uses coal for a

third of its energy demand – the highestshare since 1970. Use of other fossil fuelssoared too, with natural gas consumptionincreasing by 7% and oil consumption jumping by 3%. (This increase takes placemostly in the developing countries, inorder to reach decent living standards.)

The report, which uses data from theStatistical Review of World Energy, showsthat the growth of emissions was driven inpart by economic growth in China andIndia, with 10% and 9% increases in 2010respectively. While India’s per capitaemissions remain fairly low, China’s 6.8tonnes per head per year already overtakethose of large historic and de-factopolluters such as France, Italy and Spain.This follows at least in part because of moving manufacturing industries intodeveloping countries, the outputs of which

are largely used by developed countries.So, clearly all Parties, especially those

bound by the existing commitments foremission reduction commitments, need todo their share in Durban to lay the

Breaking News: Emissions up 5.8% While Delegates Dither

- Continued on Page 2, Column 1

Don’t Lose Sight of 

the Laggards

ECO has consistently reminded A1 ththey committed to a second commitmeperiod when they rat ified KyotFurthermore, ECO is dismayed that tcountries that respectively put the Kyoto the KP, brought it into force and startnegotiations for its second commitmeperiod – Japan, Russia and Canada – abehaving like petulant toddlers, hiding in tcorner rather than joining the Kyoto partMeanwhile, other countries - the EUAustralia, New Zealand, Norway and othe- are expressing various degrees

lukewarmness about the KP seconcommitment period.

However, this analysis misses what needed from two other groups of countriin order to have a balanced package Durban, both in terms of the form ansubstance of the outcome. The KP seconcommitment period is absolutely essentiBut the global climate crisis requires globaction.

Thus support from developing countrifor a mandate for a legally bindinagreement under the LCA, which ECthinks needs to be in the form of a protocor other appropriate legal instrument, fundamental to the solution.

However, there is another group countries that seem to be trying to escaresponsibility.   The non-KP developcountry[s], from which and about there hbeen the greatest silence of expectationneed to be called out. It seems clear thwhatever is agreed under paragraph 1(b)

- Continued on Page 2, Column 1

8/4/2019 ECO 2 - October 2nd

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eco-2-october-2nd 2/2

CLIMATENEGOTIATIONSPANAMAOCTOBER’11NGONEWSLETTER

ISSUENO2VOLUMECXXIXFREEOFCHARGE

 foundation for a of solution to theproblem (hint, hint: KP 2nd  commitmentperiod, LCA mandate for legally binding instrument, close the gigatonne gap,operationalize the Green Climate Fund,develop the technology mechanism and a

robust MRV framework). Inspiration canalso be found in more and more countries  – in particular in the developing world – working towards a shift to low carboneconomies. While the upward spiral of emissions in China is concerning from aglobal point of view, the country managedto double its wind and solar capacity forthe 6th year in a row. If the developedcountries and other major emittersfollowed China’s lead and achieved similarrenewable energy growth rates, along witha push for energy efficiency, the world’sprospects of staying below 1.5° C or 2°C

would be much better than they are now.

- Continued from Page 1, Column 2

 the Bali Action Plan (developed countrymitigation) in Durban, it will be in theform of a COP decision, but it is also clearthat all developed countries need to offermore than inadequate pledges as theircontribution to the global effort to avoid a4   C̊ world. Those that remain in the KPwill at least maintain a solid legalframework with economy-wide targets anda strong common MRV and compliance

system, even if their current targets are atwoefully low levels. ECO would love toexplore with Parties ideas to strengthen1(b)(i) so that it does not become thegrotesque poster child of a pledge andreview 4   C̊ world.

- Continued from Page 1, Column 3

Parties don’t want to have to accountfor forestry emissions not caused byhumans, like wildfires, for example. Fairenough you might say, but this is being 

used as another attempt to hide emissions.Until recently, only events classified as

  force majeure - large-scale events beyond thecontrol of Parties - would be excluded.However, the language of “force majeure”has now been dropped in favor of the lessspecific “natural disturbance.” Whetherit’s called natural disturbance or  forcemajeure, the CAN view is that anymechanism agreed in the LULUCF rulesmust transparently and conservativelyfactor out emissions and removals fromextraordinary natural disturbances only.

So what the heck does that mean?

“Extraordinary” has to be defined.And its definition shouldn’t be wildly atodds with a plain language meaning of,well, extraordinary. Common sensesuggests that it should only be used forstatistically extremely rare events and the

same provisions for natural disturbanshould be consistent for all Parties.

It also means you can’t hide just an(or all) of your debits. And it means yo

shouldn’t hide emissions if they come frostuff you did (like harvesting, or salvaglogging). Because it’s natural disturbancremember? It means you need to realclearly say where, why, and how much yoare calling natural disturbance (i.e. sho your work!)

It means that you have to treat naturdisturbances in exactly the same way   your baseline as you do in tcommitment period you’re accountinemissions. Finally, it means you have to bable to measure them really well, and threquires high quality data.

So in short, a natural disturbancmechanism for LULUCF has to retain thcommon sense meaning of  force  majeure.parties are worried their carbosequestration will go up in smoke, theshould discount the credits.

 A Disturbing Disturbance

Building Capacity Building 

 Just as CAN's approach to mitigationhas always been for Parties to focus on the

reality of "What the atmosphere actuallysees," so CAN's approach to capacitybuilding (CB) in the LCA has always beenfor Parties to concentrate on the realitieson the ground. These realities are four-fold:

1) The vast majority of Parties aremid to small sized developing countrieswi th under-deve loped economiescontaining immense potential for humanand economic development;

2) Most of these economies arealready in the frontline of initial climaticimpacts that their populations are already

experiencing, can witness, and canunderstand;

3) Governments and populations of t he s e c ount r i e s unde r s t a n d t heimplications of established science; thingswill only get worse without action, andmitigation action capable of limiting warming to 2 degrees or less will require:a) robust action from wealthy economiesand b) deviation from business-as-usualhigh-carbon development pathways for

developing countries;4) Very few of these countries hav

the political, economic or institutioncapacity right now to rapidly design anbuild low-carbon development pathwaon their own.

Unfortunately, up to now the Cnegotiations in the LCA have largeturned around almost anything else excethese basic realities - despite insistepressure and constant calls for focuHowever, there was a significaexception for a short period during thBangkok and Barcelona sessions befoCopenhagen when CB was negotiated oits own and suddenly started to ma

significant progress.The Panama session is crucial for C

in the LCA. By contrast to progress oboth technology and finance, negotiatioon institutional arrangements for CB wealmost completely unproductive Cancun. Some forward movement westablished at Bonn this June. Howevthat progress now needs a new sense purpose and focus if we are to get decision at Durban.