Equity matters

~by Graham Reeder

Today’s negotiations have almost exclusively been dedicated to the subject of equity. The Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action, after spending most of yesterday squabbling over its agenda, got straight into holding their all-day workshop on equitable access to sustainable development.

The word equity in the context of the negotiations decisions has its origins in the Cancun outcomes (https://unfccc.int/files/na/application/pdf/07a01-1.pdf) and was further entrenched in the Durban outcomes (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/09a01.pdf). But the concept is much older, in fact, the concept of equity is central to the very core of these negotiations, the convention itself. Contained as core principles of the UNFCCC are ‘Historical Responsibility’—meaning that those who have created this problem are responsible for cleaning it up—‘Common but Differentiated Responsibilities’—meaning that developed and developing countries play a different role in tackling and adapting to climate change—and ‘Respective Capabilities’—meaning that those countries who have more capacity (read: money, technology, institutions) to deal with climate change should take on more responsibility.

The concept of equity is extremely important for parties to address right now, as it needs to be the basis for new negotiations on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. The presentations have been lively and, for the most part, articulate. Sivan Kartha from the Stockholm Environment Institute, a senior scientist for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) kicked the morning off with a highly articulate presentation on how to fairly allocate the remaining atmospheric space as well as the burden for addressing climate change based on science and the principles of the convention. Prodipto Ghosh from the Energy and Resources Institute continued with a highly theoretical and academic approach to defining equity and applying it scientifically to emissions reductions that went over most negotiators’ heads. After that, presentations were given from a whole range of parties and a couple of other organisations (like the South Centre).

The crux of equity is that developed country parties both need to take the lead on cutting their own emissions and finance emissions reductions and sustainable development in the developing world by providing money and affordable clean technologies. This was agreed upon in the convention and has been affirmed countless times, but some rich countries are using the current economic climate and economic growth in China and India as an excuse, saying that they cannot afford what they owe and that times have changed. But have times really changed all that much? China and India’s economies have grown, but their per capita income and emissions have remained small. The US, EU, Canada, and other developed countries however have grown much wealthier, and their per capita emissions are still very far ahead of other countries. Singapore argued that a per capita approach to emissions counting (rather than a gross national emissions counting approach) is unfair to small countries as it exaggerates their emissions. However, Egypt was quick to note that if a per capita approach is taken alongside the other principles of equity, where developed and developing countries are distinguished by capabilities and responsibilities, that shouldn’t be a problem.

Equity will be a central theme of negotiations here in Bonn, as the new Ad-Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action begins work here, figuring out how equity will unlock the door to ambition will be necessary to determine how we move forward.

Finance Inadequate!

~by Joe Perullo

The word Philippine negotiator Bernarditas de Castro-Muller wouldn’t let go unnoticed in yesterday’s small negotiating group meeting on finance was “inadequate.”

The contact group met to discuss possible guidelines on the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and how to manage it’s two sub-funds: the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) and the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF).

The GEF is the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC, allocating and disbursing about $250 million dollars per year in projects in energy efficiency, renewable energies, and sustainable transportation. The Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at it seventh session in Marrakech, addresses the special needs of the 48 Least Developed Countries (LDCs), which are especially vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change. This includes financing National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) which address urgent and immediate needs of LDCs to adapt to climate change.

In the contact group, developing countries insisted that financial support for both funds needs to be more predictable and adequate. ‘Predictable,’ means that right now funding for the funds is voluntary, not legally mandatory for developed countries—so nobody knows how much (or little) developing countries can expect to work with. ‘Adequate,’ means two things: there is not enough money in the funds right now, and far too little is expected with voluntary contributions.

So far the GEF has mobilized voluntary contributions of about $172 million for the LDCF. As developed countries keep pointing out, its target in the next 4 years is to reach $500 million, which is the amount estimated by the UNFCCC needed to finance NAPA implementation. The EU claimed this will be reached and is enough. The Philippines wasn’t so sure.

As the meeting time came to a close, the Chair decided to move discussions on the funds to a spin off group, which will include presentations by countries—not just negotiating, but longer prepared speeches.

AWG-KP intervention text

~Opening intervention of the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol, written by YOUNGO and delivered by Camilla Born from the UKYCC.

AWG-KP intervention:

Thank you chair.  My name is Camilla and I am 23 years old. For us, the outcome of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations in Durban was extremely disappointing. All Annex I parties should have led by example and taken on ambitious, legally binding commitments to forge a firm foundation to a sustained global multilateral rules-based system. One that would effectively mitigate climate change based on the principles of equity, historical responsibility, and common, but differentiated responsibilities.

However, all is not lost. We still have this year to decide on robust rules to maximize ambition and we call on willing parties to take on necessary decisions to implement them. During this time, there is one word in particular that young people are thinking about.  We would like you in the room to take a moment, a deep breath and consider the word ‘ambition’.

First, we need ambition to ensure that the highest possible emission reductions can be realized. Therefore, in light of the current weak pledges, we call for a 5-year commitment period, so as not to lock ourselves into low reduction targets, giving sufficient space to review our current ambition, and push ourselves further.

Second, we need ambition to ensure the integrity of emissions reductions. Annex I parties must endeavour to make real emissions reductions, and relinquish using loopholes and other methods of creative emissions accounting.

Third, we need ambition to honor the promises that you have made. We need you to wholeheartedly sign on to the second commitment period to fulfill our ambition – not to back away without even fulfilling your emissions reductions from the first commitment period, and certainly not to back out of the protocol altogether. Your ambition can lead by example, and inspire trust in others for a process that does not have to be condemned before it has been fulfilled.

Now is the chance for climate leaders to bring ambition to the forefront.  The continuation of the Kyoto Protocol has incredible potential and cannot be compromised; the ambition from all developed countries in this room is essential to realising this potential. Kyoto’s best practices can serve as an inspiring framework for future climate regimes to be built upon.  Giving up on Kyoto sends the wrong message to young and future generations and delays the sustainable and equitable future we are all fighting for. High ambition now is our only option.

Thank you.

SBI opening plenary intervention

~Written by YOUNGO and delivered today by Graham Reeder at the opening plenary of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation.
SBI intervention:

Thank you chair.  My name is Graham and I am 21 years old. We would like to take this opportunity to address three pertinent issues on the SBI agenda.

First, with regards to Article 6, we believe that education for sustainable development is crucial to build capacity amongst different stakeholders to harness solutions and build agency at a sub-national level.

If governments are serious about making progress, then young people will need to be educated, aware, and become active participants in climate change decisions.  You need us to be.

We do not need an empty work programme: the new programme on Article 6 must increase access to funding for Article 6 projects- especially non-formal education run by and for youth.

We therefore believe that a permanent programme should be established which must have robust time-bound performance indicators, well-supported national focal points and promote collaboration with stakeholders at all levels. This new programme will be pivotal in ensuring that the implementation of Article 6 can be further enhanced and sustained on a long-term basis.

Second, we welcome the first meeting of the Durban Forum on Capacity Building, and very much look forward to sharing our ideas and experiences of this vital topic.  We hope that this renewed focus will highlight the importance and urgency of robust action on Capacity Building to address barriers to climate action.  An institutionalized forum is a good first step, but more equitable action is needed urgently to actively and continually involve all stakeholders.

Last, a work programme on loss and damage can only be successful if it is operational and implemented. Vulnerable countries are experiencing the impacts of climate change now and cannot afford hesitation on the part of the international community. Research and expertise exist, the SBI’s role must be to consider how to consolidate information and utilize it to implement best practices, and not to repeat research and stall progress.

We have a lot to do.  Let’s approach the coming two weeks with renewed energy and a willingness to cooporate in a spirit of trust.

Thank you