CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS

The 2020 deadline for the entry into force of legally binding commitments for all Parties is too late to meet the 2C target unless pre2020 ambition can be urgently and equitably increased. To do so, devel oped countries must step up in the KP and LCA, while the ADP can also help raise ambition in mitigation and the means of implementation. In this spirit, ECO would like to remind Parties of the numerous benefits of shorter (5 year) commitment periods in the KP. They: Enable targets to be based on the best available science and updated frequently Reduce concerns about locking in low levels of ambition (and ECO has many of those!! Do I hear 30% anyone??)
Lamb continued system is sufficiently favourable. Failing to meet a voluntary com mitment under the Copenhagen Accord has political con sequences, but failing to meet a binding commitment under CP2 has political and economic consequences. So no surprises

Maintain links with the political accountability cycle, which is typically 4 to 6 years (longer commitment periods make meeting targets someone elses problem) Encourage early action (whereas it is easier to put off action with longer periods just think: when did you do your homework as a child?) It is also completely unacceptable for the USA, Canada, Japan, Russia, and any other developed country that reneges on its Convention commitments to take the lead, to remain outside of a legal agreement for the rest of the decade. Amendments, such as the ability to ratchet up targets within a commitment period, should be included in the Kyoto amend ments, independent of commitment period

Shorter Is Better

BONN

MAY 2012

NGO NEWSLETTER
length. Further amendments could also be made to assuage any concerns about adopting a 5 year CP as well. Finally, ECO is concerned that 8 years would establish a bad precedent, leading to even longer commitment periods in the future (i.e. 2030) and longer IPCC assessment cycles (i.e. 810 years) currently being pushed by some Parties. In other words, 8 years is the gateway drug to poor regime architecture long term. Ours is an ask of all governments to do more, faster, to save the planet. The EU and the few other committed developed countries should start by adopting a 5 year commitment period for the Doha amendment. To quote from Shakespeares Henry VI trilogy Defer no time, delays have dangerous ends. And we all know how that story ends.

eco
CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS BONN MAY 2012
A long, awkward silence settled over the 100+ delegates and observers crammed into the tiny Koch meeting room. In the Cooperative Sectoral Approaches spinoff group, the chair had asked negotiators for ideas on how to get to a conclusion on bunkers by Doha. Delegates, some standing and others seated on the floor, didnt seem to have an answer. Thinking that the hot, crowded and uncomfortable room might be sucking the creative juices out of people, the chair arranged to move to the spacious and blissfully cool Saal Bonn. But when delegates arrived, they found the door locked. An ironically fitting reboot to the decade long search for a fair way to control the

NGO NEWSLETTER
22 Ma y

Pledge & Veto Issue

ECO has been published by NonGovernmental Environmental Groups at major international conferences since the Stockholm Environment Conference in 1972. ECO is produced cooperatively by the Climate Action Network at the UNFCCC meetings in Bonn, May 2012.

ECO email: administration@climatenetwork.org ECO website: http://climatenetwork.org/econewsletters Editorial/Production: Kyle Gracey

Time to Rock the Boat

fastgrowing emissions from international transport, and in the process generate billions in climate finance for the poorest and most vulnerable. ECO is convinced that negotiators can do much better. To that end, ECO offers some suggestions in reaching agreement on giving a signal to the IMO and ICAO, the sectoral bodies that will negotiate and implement measures for shipping and aviation, respectively: Be prepared to compromise: developed countries need to signal they are prepared to address equity and different cir cumstances of developed and developing countries, while developing countries need to agree to global approaches that dont violate the principles of the ICAO and IMO by differentiating between ships

and aircraft Be practical: agree that differentiation must be addressed through the use of revenues to correct equity issues and impacts on developing countries, and in addition raise substantial and predictable climate finance for the Green Climate Fund Be ambitious: show that the LCA is capable of delivering ambitious outcomes by Doha, on both finance and mitigation Heres a chance to demonstrate how CBDRRC can be interpreted in global approaches in a balanced, practical way. It is no longer ahead of its time. In fact, now it can set useful and equitable precedents for the future global regime.

then that New Zealand has not submitted its QELRO, is fo cused on the accounting and has also created an impossible hurdle (see the demand for a "balancing agreement" in its recent submission) in case an excuse is needed to bail from the Kyoto ship.

Iran Iran Iran Iran Iran Iran Iran Iran Iran Iran Iran Iran Iran Iran Iran Iran
National term of endearment/greeting: Annual bread consumption: Annual rice consumption: Best things about Iran: Worst things about Iran: Things you didn't know: Existing action on the table: Additional actions Iran should agree to as its 2020 contribution, at a minimum: Rationale: Joon 160 kilograms per person per year 35 kilograms per person per year Sun, Forest, Snow and Desert all in one place at the same time! Inefficiency in all aspects of life! World's 8th largest CO2 polluter (total emissions), ahead of the UK and South Korea! The largest ski resort in the heart of the Middle East! 30% emission reduction by 2025 in comparison by BAU scenario. Financed by the government (BAU scenario for 2025: 2,248.5 million tonnes CO2). Iran supports keeping warming below 2C 64% emission reduction by 2025 in comparison by BAU scenario (Only if international technical/financial assistance under UNFCCC becomes available) Iran has no official NAMA. Iran did not associate with the Copenhagen accord. The mitigation targets are extracted from Iran's second communication to UNFCCC that was published in Durban COP17. Iran takes the BAU scenario for 2025 for its mitigation plan and does not refer to any time in the past.

I m p r e ss Y Confuse our Friends! "CAN Collectibles": New and Improved Formula! Your En emies! Fast Facts About Countries That Can Increase Their Ambition in Qatar

Pathway to Qatar and 2015

:1 5 How to build a workplan across KP, LCA and 1 9 :4 5 ADP to ensure a successful 2015 protocol Facilitator : Niranjali, CIEL Equity : Tim Gore, Oxfam Mitigation : Wael Hmaidan, CAN Support : Mahlet Eyassu, Forum for Environment, Ethiopia Elements of a 20122015 Workplan : Wendel Trio, E) (Mo CAN Europe d Win

ADP, KP and LCA:

18

On the eve of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), a barbarian horde of chain saws is marching on the Brazilian forest. Commander and Chief, President Dilma, is the only one who can protect Brazil from this threat. The Brazilian Congress passed a bill which leaves the forest unprotected. According to highly conservative estimates from a governmental research institute, an area twice as large as Germany would fall to the chainsaws. If the bill is not vetoed, at least an additional 30 gigatonnes CO2 equivalent will be emitted through this deforestation. The proposed amendments would also provide broad amnesty for outlaws of the forest. While President Dilma has stayed silent, more than 85% of the Brazilian public wants deforestation to stop no matter what, and massive demonstrations have been rocking all parts of the country. The message is clear: Brazilian society will not accept a chainsaw massacre in their forests. One of President Dilmas election promises included a veto of any proposal which would give amnesty to forest crimes and/or lead to further deforestation. If she goes back on this promise now, she would also be rescinding on Brazils Copenhagen commitment to cut Business as Usual emissions by 2020 by up to 39%. Now is the time for her to act. Her own credibility, and the fate of the Brazilian forests and climate efforts, rests in her hands. ECO urgently implores all Parties that truly wish to address climate change and deforestation to pick up the phone and give President Dilma a call to remind her of the promises she has made. A full veto would be the only way for her to keep her word. Make the call:

Make the CALL...

ISSUE NO 8

PAGE 4

FREE OF CHARGE

ISSUE NO 8

...For Dilma to Veto It ALL

PAGE 1

+55 1161 3411 1200 or +55 61 3411 1201

FREE OF CHARGE

CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS
Its about as big as the combined yearly CO2 emissions from Europe and the US. Yes, we are talking about the gigantic, 10 gigatonne loophole that could undermine the whole purpose of a second Kyoto commitment period. ECO is clear, Parties must pop this hot air bubble this year, unless they have 10 gigatonnes of unannounced additional mitigation action up their sleeves. Total A1 pledges until 2020 amount to only about 18 gigatonnes in cumulative pollution reductions. If all the hot air were used, these weak pledges would be cut in half. It is difficult to see how developed countries would then be able to convince developing countries to take on substantial reductions past 2020 if their own actions are so weak. ECO is thrilled that the African Group and AOSIS have started to waltz and have tabled proposals on how to address the surplus AAUs. ECO especially likes the AOSIS proposal. It makes use of the surplus dependent on a countrys level of ambition in CP2. If a countrys emission pledges are the same or higher than their 2008 emission, they will not be able to use any carry over. If their QELRO is below 2008 emissions

Brazilian Hot Air Samba Confuses Negotiators

and if they do not meet their pledge, they can use a small fraction of their surplus to help meet their pledge. The African proposal is good but less stringent. It allows for countries to sell 2% of their surplus per year. In an 8year commitment period this would mean potentially 16% of carry over being sold. In ECOs rough calculation thats more than 1 Gt. It is a start but still too high. They get a thumbs up for including offsets from the CDM and JI in the limitation of the carry over. ECO also welcomes their suggestions that half of the revenue of the AAUs sold is used for mitigation action in the seller country and that the other half goes to the Adaptation Fund. After consulting three Nobel Prize winners and a Fields Medal laureate, ECO still cannot figure out what the Brazilian proposal is all about. It seems to say that hot air due to the current economic crisis represents real emission reductions and should therefore be carried over fully. It also implies that the proceeds could go directly into the pockets of European companies and not be spent on adaptation. Europe, with its apparent second term Polish EU presidency, is still practising its noble silence.

BONN

MAY 2012

NGO NEWSLETTER

CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS
New Zealand has landed in a pickle over its forest accounts. The age structure of NZs plantations means that major harvesting is due to start late this decade and continue into the 2020s. Combine this with the new afforestation/reforestation debitcredit rule and the gains NZ wrangled in LULUCF look likely to evaporate its carbon accounts skewed into the negative. ECO might even have a rare twinge of sympathy for NZ.

ECO commends the countries that have shown leadership on this issue! ECO calls on the G77 to develop a technically and environmentally sound proposal this week. This is the year the AAU surplus issue has to be resolved once and for all. Otherwise, we will not be able to start with CP2 in January 2013.

Chutney With Your Lamb?

BONN

MAY 2012

NGO NEWSLETTER
CAN Classifieds "Lonely Hearts"
C.B., openminded, progressive type (lonelyhearted since that wonderful fortnight in Marrakech 10 years ago) seeks forwardlooking, equally open minded partners for serious, mutually productive, actionoriented longterm engagement. Available to meet up 36 pm today [Tuesday] and tomorrow [Wednesday] in Plenary 2 throughout the Durban Forum on Capacity Building.
emissions and expected blowout in net emissions. With no intention of actually reducing gross emissions, NZs only course of action is to play with the accounting system. This means trying to ensure maximum carryover of surplus AAUs from CP1 to CP2, securing access to the cheapest carbon credits possible (euphemistically full recourse to carbon markets) and a handout of AAUs from new accounting rules. It looks like New Zealands decision on CP2 will depend on who New Zealand wants to be friends with and whether the accounting

But ECO has no sympathy for New Zealand when it comes to gross emissions. Theyve continued rising since 1990 and are projected to continue rising, even with its muchtalked aboutbutratherweak Emissions Trading Scheme. Worse, having agreed in Cancun that developed countries should write a low carbon development plan, New Zealand is showing no sign of writing one. It certainly has no plan to get gross emissions on a downward trajectory. Instead New Zealand is planning just everything possible to increase emissions: dairy farming expansion, unprecedented levels of coal mining, a major road building programme, more oil and gas exploration, and, to cap it all (no pun intended) off, the state owned mining company wants to dig up 1.5 billion tonnes of lignite and turn it into fuel and fertiliser. Its no wonder New Zealand wants rules for setting QELROs that would enable it to meet its 20% by 2020 target and end the second commitment period with over 22 million spare AAUs a tidy sum for a small country. So, where does all this leave New Zealands decisions on CP2 of Kyoto, its 2020 target and its QELRO? NZ is quietly desperate to accommodate its planned increase in gross

Last week, we heard what equity means to you. It seems to us that many nations are deflecting responsibility away from themselves and on to others. We want to be able to be responsible for our future but your actions now will determine whether we are still able to stop runaway climate change. Why are these talks not focusing more on intergenerational equity? Intergenerational equity can help us to see beyond national interests and geographical boundaries. It can unite rich and poor countries. The essential ambition for all of us must be ensuring a clean and safe future for all generations to come. You know that we cannot wait. Youre running out of excuses. We're running out of time. Listen to our voice, and make intergenerational equity the catalyst for increased ambition. Yours sincerely, YOUNGO

An Open Letter from Youth to UNFCCC Delegates

First Place Fossils go to the USA, Canada, Japan, Russia, Australia, New Zealand and China. The first 1st place Fossil goes to the USA, for its continuing attempts to block negotiations on sources of financing, and refusing to discuss how it will continue to scale up financing in 2013 and onwards, towards the agreed goal of US$100 billion by 2020. We know that the USA faces some deep denial issues internally, as well as avoidance issues in the negotiations around issues like equity, capacity building and an international mechanism on loss and damage. Until the US is willing to have a frank and honest discussion leading to substantive decisions, it will be an impediment to this process. An additional 1st place fossil goes to Canada for can you guess???? reneging on their commitments to fight climate change by withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol. While many of you enjoyed your first full night of sleep after Durban overtime, the Canadians had no such luck. Barely off the plane,

Canadas Environment Minister wasted no time in confirming the COPs worst kept secret that Canada was officially pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol. Many delegates probably had already given up on Canada at that point, but those of us that live within that vast, beautiful, hockeyloving country have had to continue to bear witness to what

k ee W
Week 1
can only be called the government of polluters puppets. While Canadas actions are clearly in a world of its own when it comes to bad behavior in the Kyoto Protocol, there are others that are behaving in fossil worthy manner. Here, were looking at Japan and Russia for refusing to participate in the second commitment period and Australia and New Zealand for missing the critical

May 1 deadline to submit their QELROS. Australia and New Zealand are on notice that we expect these submissions by the end of Bonn though the sooner the better, as it is causing trouble in the KP. And the final1st place Fossil goes to China for holding in abeyance the work programme on scalingup pre2020 ambition under the ADP. We agree with China that the ADP must not allow developed countries to jump ship from the KP and LCA to a weaker regime, but Parties can't hold critical parts of the Durban package in abeyance, which amounts to punting them to the other side of the moon. We can't hold the fight against climate change in abeyance!

Despite the Convention objective in Article 2 to stabilize emissions before food production is threatened, impacts of climate change on food production are already being felt around the world. Floods have decimated wheat fields in Pakistan and rice fields in Thailand. Heat waves have seriously reduced yields of Russian wheat and US maize. Drought cost Texas agriculture US$8 billion last year and tens of thousands of lives in the Horn of Africa.

Big Talk for Smallholders

Local and mostly smallscale food producers feed the vast majority of the global population. They are extremely vulnerable to climate change. This in turn threatens food security across the world. As temperatures rise and the weather becomes more unpredictable, large areas of land will become unsuitable for smallholders current agricultural practices. Enabling smallholders to adapt, protect their livelihoods and contribute to food security become crucial objectives. Adaptation is the most urgent and compelling need for smallholders, particularly in developing countries, who have the least resilience and means to cope. This is why SBSTA must consider the impacts of climate change across all scales of food production and find approaches to ensuring food security for all. The CGIAR has already published many sobering reports on the impacts on food production. Ghana will lose cocoa production on huge portions of its territory. Tea production in the highlands of East

Africa will migrate up slopes and significantly contract in area. Developing country economies are often quite dependent on valuable export crops whose production will significantly diminish. Climate change and agriculture conversations will bleed over into the negotiations on loss and damage. In order for smallscale farmers to be able to adapt and to build their adaptive capacity, they must be enabled to practice farming systems that are resilient to longterm climate change, including indigenous practices that strengthen the ecosystems which they are a part of. This form of agro ecological smallholder farming and other forms of sustainable and climateresilient food production should be promoted.

continued on page 4

ISSUE NO 8

PAGE 2

FREE OF CHARGE

ISSUE NO 8

PAGE 3

So, whilst the UNFCCC considers agri culture in SBSTA, ECO asks Parties to provide scientific and technical advice regarding biodiverse, resilient agriculture based on agroecological principles, and explore appropriate technology develop ment and transfer. Its about as big as t CO2 emissions from E FREE OF Yes, we are talking ab CHARGE