http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra What's on the minds of young leaders from around the globe? en-us http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/470729
Sorry there was no final wrap-up of the Convention, but for all of you who want something better than anything I could have written, the final ENB (Earth News Bulletin) is posted here:

http://www.iisd.ca/climate/ccwg2/

It's only 10 pages too!

No but really, from the heart of my bottom, thank you for reading. I really do hope its helped as we continue down this road to Copenhagen (which we can only hope, looks as good as the picture).

Until Poland,

Rhiya]]> Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:29:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/470729 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/466367
Since it was delivered by a Ghanaian, the intervention was held on a much more personal level, which we can only hope ensured effectiveness. I would paraphrase the opening paragraph, but that would just ruin it:

"I had hoped, as a Ghanaian that I would be able to find inspiration and hope during this week in Accra, that your presence here in my country, and the obvious climate threats we are facing, would spur you to further action. I am, however, worried for the pace of these negotiations, and the pathway forward to achieving an ambitious post-2012 agreement is still unclear to me and the pace of your progress dangerously slow."

Samuel Dotse, the deliverer, continued to acknowledge the few proposals and discussions that could be considered major accomplishments, namely the Norwegian proposal to auction AAU's to fund adaptation and mitigation, the REDD meetings, and the workshops on sectoral approaches.

The issue of absolute specificity dominated the rest of the speech, as CAN called for more concrete proposals on mitigation (in relation to MRV, comparability, and bunker fuels), adaptation (in relation to finance as part pf the polluter pays principle, instead of international aid), and technology cooperation and transfer.

CAN is absolutely right that without solid proposals on these issues and many others, a new agreement will not be ready by Copenhagen. Furthermore, CAN stressed that going head-to-head over the KP's mandate vs. the LCA's mandate is not achieving anything.

Overlap is bound to happen, as the two working groups are inextricably linked to the absolute mission of creating a new agreement for a new climate regime. They have to work together.

The intervention ended with an impassioned call to action for a "flurry" of new submissions to be made before Poland. Pray that it reached all in attendance.

Thanks again to CAN for providing texts of these fantastic interventions. We'll be back tomorrow when the final summaries and updates come out, so we can wrap this thing up!

Rhiya


]]> Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:09:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/466367 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/466353
First and foremost, CAN noted the true significance of this Ad-Hoc Working Group, stating that it "is in fact at the heart of [the Kyoto Protocol] process. If the heart stops beating, or stalls for a long period of time, the rest of the body dies with it."

With that in mind, they urged all in attendance to "breath new life and trust" to Poland in December, especially concerning (but not limited to) the following ideals:

Mitigation
The necessity for Annex 1 nations to move forward on aggressive national targets that are met by overwhelming reductions at home was highlighted, with a shift from unsustainable and inequitable consumption patters noted as the main mechanism. Quantitatively, cuts of 80%-95% from 1990 levels by 2050 were stressed (within Annex 1). Lastly, mitigation actions in developing countries must be supplemental to profound domestic reductions by these Annex 1 parties, and in no way can they shy away from the ultimate purpose of creating low-carbon economies in these non-Annex 1 parties.

Nuclear in the CDM
This one was easy, as the group simply urged all parties to discard even the thought, citing economic inefficiency (especially when compared to renewables), and the unresolved, semi- apocalyptic issues around safe disposal and potential proliferation.
Even if you are someone who believes that nuclear power is not as evil as everyone makes it out to be, the bottom line is that it doesn't compare to wind, solar, geothermal, or any of the other renewables in every imaginable criteria category. If we are to truly enter a climate regime, the half-way solution that nuclear represents cannot be our main motive. We have to go all the way, and it has to be with renewable power as a priority.

To narrow down the list of potential mechanisms, CAN suggested an extremely logical approach. When considering the options and before submitting what they hope will be detailed reactions, A1 parties should ask themselves one question:
"how will these items affect the size of my country's emissions reduction target?"
An all around good suggestion (I feel) since countries may actually start to weed out their pet projects that don't actually contribute to any kind of enhanced mitigation.

Bunker Fuels
For years now CAN has been stressing the need to control bunker fuels under the Kyoto Protocol. Aviation emissions are extremely straightforward to monitor on the basis of fuel sales and departing flights. Maritime emissions are more complex and present a bit of a dilemma: should they be used as a financial mechanism (sectoral approach to shipping could raise tens of billions of dollars a year for mitigation and adaptation) or should they simply be monitored and reduced. CAN acknowledges that this is no simple task, but stresses that it is under the responsibility of the Protocol to ensure that these emissions do not continue business as usual.

And finally, LULUCF
CAN (along with everyone else) was very happy with the progress made on LULUCF over the course of the discussions, but urge the Parties to clarify their stance on accounting, in particular:
1. That parties must ensure a reduction of business-as-usual emissions
2. That accounting for emissions from forest management cannot be optional
3. And that a country's LULUCF budget must have a limit (focus on fossil fuels!)

All in all, the intervention provided a promising list of initiatives for the group to pursue before Poland. Thank you CAN!

Rhiya

]]> Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:19:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/466353 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/464763 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:15:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/464763 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/464745
The flex group continued to debate the list of possible improvements to the mechanisms. They stressed the need for further elaboration and so parties will be making submissions till October 17th on the matter. Draft conclusions and amendments were also presented, which included the use of nuclear activities under Joint Implementation (CDM contained in the developed world), as well as three options related to the eligibility of CCS (carbon capture and storage).

Other issues continued to push their items onto the Poznan agenda, claiming lack of consensus and in the case of greenhouse gas inventories, information.

Luckily, the LULUCF informal consultations and contact group made some headway. The five options around forest management that were presented at the beginning of the week were condensed to four (yippee!). They also included an explicit statement that Article 3.4 activities (additional activities) other than forest management would be discussed in due course. Things are getting simpler and not being left behind!

Some clarifications are also underway in relation to natural disturbances, gross-net vs. net-net accounting, and differentiating between emissions from harvesting and those from harvested wood products (remember the furniture conversation?).

So good times for LULUCF. Back tomorrow with a wrap of of the closing plenaries, and check back later this week for a full recap of the convention.

Rhiya]]> Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:54:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/464745 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/464711
As far as sources are concerned, Norway's proposal to auction off AAU's (assigned amount units, 1 = 1 tonne carbon dioxide emissions, the things Kyoto Protocol caps are made of)) and use the proceeds to fund mitigation and adaptation remains the strongest. Parties still proposed however, using voluntary contributions and other market mechanisms.

The advantages of the Norwegian plan is that it is constant, reliable, and would contribute to reduction targets at home (AAU's can only be auctioned of if a country reduces its emissions and has credits left over). Many of the other proposed plans are at the whims of international governments, and based on historical responsibility (which adds ambiguity) or deregulated market prices (which as we all know now, are thoroughly unpredictable).

Having an executive board to develop and monitor activities on tech transfer and a global insurance mechanism were also tossed around as potential institutions to ratify.

And in other matters, despite only confirming the drafting of a 2009 work programme yesterday, parties have already requested an extension to the deadlines for submissions. Headway was made however, as two workshops on developed country mitigation commitments and developing country mitigation actions would be held during the first session of 2009.

Back shortly with goings on in the KP.

Rhiya]]> Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:15:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/464711 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/464707
1. The EU outlined possible elements of a Copenhagen deal which included integration of adaptation into national decision making and planning, the scaling up of resources for adaptation, and support for the least developed countries when developing their own adaptation plans and programmes.

2. The African Group presented an African regional adaptations implementation initiative, which would include: a network of African centers of excellence, a three year pilot phase of adaptation activities (implemented cooperatively, of course) and a pilot project of stand-alone adaptation activities.

3. And AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) suggested an adaptation framework which would contain mechanisms to ensure timely flows of new and additional resources to address both short and long term adaptation needs, to enhance national capacity to incorporate adaptation issues into national planning, to build up a resistance to the anticipated effects of global warming, and to adapt to unavoidable climate impacts.

With concrete proposals like these, headway is inevitable. Thanks to the ENB (Earth News Bulletin) for providing such detailed info on the day's work.

Rhiya]]> Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:56:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/464707 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/464695
In particular, Australia and Japan pursued the notion that any country with high GDP should join A1, and the US rounded out this escapist argument by stating that unmanaged growth of emissions from developing countries would negate mitigation efforts already undertaken by developed countries. Now would be the logical time to ask - what mitigation actions from developed countries?

The EU (emerging from their slumber - they've barely contributed in the past week) listed types of actions that developing countries should undertake, such as energy efficiency measures, promotion of renewable energy, and sectoral crediting and trading. Then they proceeded to scold the developed world for lack of implementation in non-A1 parties. Bottom line: everybody got roasted.

South Africa continued to stress the linkages between climate policies and development, but Uganda noted the need to address the spillover or adverse effects of response measures.

Looking forward and recognizing that time has just about run out in Accra, Norway proposed a REDD workshop in Poland. Seeing as the one held in the opening days of this conference was so successful, future REDD endeavors will hopefully bring more concrete solutions and actions to the mitigation potential of the LCA.

A-1 countries have got to stop looking to the global south for solutions to the mounting climate crisis. It's just flat out not fair, nor is it achieving anything.

Be back soon with updates on the rest of the day's LCA stuff: Adaptation, Tech and Finance, and more on the 2009 Work Programme.

And while we've been distracted by all of this crazy UNFCCC stuff, that little guy in the top right - the American pika - might be extinct soon. Thought you should know in case any of you are inspired by their cuteness. :(

Rhiya]]> Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:16:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/464695 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/463835
The chair of the group presented a document early on that focused the day's work. The text explored possible options for amendments to definitions, modalities, rules and guidelines for LULUCF. The five options presented each held different versions of forest management accounting and additional activities that parties could undertake, depending on their LULUCF budgets.

Parties stressed the need for recognition of non-forest management issues (a.k.a land use) and that elements from all five proposed options should be amalgamated into one, super LULUCF plan. There was however, an argument about whether or not "additional activities" (which are usually optional) could be made mandatory if written into a first commitment period. As flexible as Parties seemed they were getting, they still managed to show old, non committal tendencies in this way.

Similarly, an A1 party proposed a removal of emissions caps on these additional activities. Huh?

The chair plans to write up a new text based on the discussion, and it will be open for re-negotiations on Tuesday.

The "other issues" group also met within the KP, but all they managed to do was push everything on their agenda to Poland. So expect spillover effects, greenhouse gases, and methodological issues to all come up in December.

A delegate was quoted after the day's work to say that "with all [they] have to do, [he's] surprised at the lack of urgency." As you can probably tell, "discussions are very much still in the collecting and clarifying mode."

I guess we could always say, maybe tomorrow will be better.

Rhiya
]]> Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:37:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/463835 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/463831
Scaling up financial and technological conduits between the global North and South and incorporating climate change into all poverty related policy (since the two are now inextricably linked) were two major non-A1 issues. Also, the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) called for adaptive technology specific to their region.

All Parties agreed that the distinction between immediate climate shocks and long-term climatic changes needs to be drawn and incorporated into policy and action.

And concerning funding, coherence to ensure effectiveness and plentiful resources was stressed. Also, a new idea concerning an insurance mechanism that would manage climate risk was tossed around. Finally, regional bodies were proposed to identify financing, tech transfer, and capacity building needs in some of the world's hardest hit regions.

Generally speaking, these are good ideas, and I know you're probably tired of hearing this, but we need to get beyond this clarification stage. Besides, do you think a time will come where all 192 countries in the Convention will agree and be clear on everything?

On this note, informal discussions were held concerning a work programme for 2009. The focus was orientated towards negotiating, since 2008's programme had a firm foothold in the exchange of ideas. The chair of the LCA presented three options by which a draft programme could be drawn up:

1. Compiling proposals from any and all Parties on their ideas in a new agreement
2. A non-paper containing possible elements of a Copenhagen deal
3. A draft negotiating text

You can see that as you go down the list the level of commitment and solidification ramps up. Sadly however, parties chose option 1. Workshops for next year were also proposed along these lines: sectoral approaches, agricultural mitigation, greenhouse gas inventories, impacts of response measures, and developed country mitigation commitments and developing country mitigation actions. Note: a good sign is that the workshops are getting more specific in relation to the most contentious issues, so this will hopefully ensure some level of success.

Up next is Monday's sessions in the KP.

Rhiya

PS Meet Yvo de Boer over there on the right. He's the UNFCCC Secretariat (based in Bonn) and an all-around important guy to know about. ]]> Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:42:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/463831 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/463789
The Umbrella Group (Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and the US) wants new, legal mitigation obligations from all parties, and since the Convention only really applies to A1, this would require amendments. Hence, the majority of developing parties are attempting to halt the controversy and get the group focused on the implementation of what is already written.

Japan, citing the evolution of many developing economies, is calling for a re-evaluation of major polluters in non-Annex 1, and claiming that the 'polluter pays' system applies to them (China and India). The EU came to the aid of emerging economies however, stating that the Least Developed Countries (LDC's) have nothing to do with the current negotiations, and what we really need is at least a 30% in developed country emissions from 1990 levels by 2020.

Clearly, things are still in the clarifying stages, but the debate over whether to stay [and amend] or go on the Convention is beginning to cripple the group. A1 parties need to take the lead and say that they will work with what is already written and stop trying to involve non-A1 parties on everything. They need to face the facts of their historical obligation to this monumental problem.

Rhiya]]> Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:16:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/463789 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/463779
As generally expected, the discussion focused almost entirely around Parties various proposals for a funding framework and criteria.

The G-77/China asserted their desire for financial security when they called for "direct access to funding, new and additional resources, and predictability". It sounds wonderful when you put it like that, but feasibility will be an issue, as revealed by the various other issues that arose.

India was slightly more practical, as they stressed the need to drop intellectual property rights and break down research and tech transfer barriers between A1 and non-A1.

Norway continued to promote their plan to auction emissions allowances to fund adaptation. They're way ahead of the game at home, and for them to put all of their extra credits (rewards for emitting below their standard) to such a good use is truly admirable.

Mexico played their usual tune as well, with a discussion of a global adaptation, mitigation and tech transfer fund with contributions from all parties based on their greenhouse gas emissions, population and GDP.

And as we all expected them to, Japan plugged the sectoral approach as a way to identify financial needs for technologies on a sectoral basis.

The clarification of criteria definitely represents progress, but negotiations for an global tech transfer and financing program need to begin. As stated in the opening of this climate conference, we need concrete proposals and truly committed Parties.

Rhiya]]> Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:00:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/463779 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/462939
You might remember our post on the profoundly convoluted greenhouse gas related meeting of the "other issues" group. The second session which focused on spillover effects proved slightly more successful.

Spillover effects are the negative consequences of any global climate change program. If you didn't know there were any, so sorry to burst your bubble. For developing and developed countries alike however, spillover effects are issues that do need addressing.

The oil industries use spillover effect conversations as moments of self-righteousness during which they can whine about the "fossil fuel discrimination" they face and the economic implications of renewable based energy policy for them. It's hardly a surprise that losing money and their iron grip on the energy economy are their main two insecurities, and spillover effects discussions are some of the only venues to host these complaints.

Luckily, oil related spillover effects did not emerge from the Accra talks (on Saturday, at least). The main issues included whether to prioritize aiding spillover effects in developing countries or all parties, assessment criteria by which spillover effects will be identified, and the negative impacts of biofuel production on global food prices and availability.

Biofuel specs included differentiating between biofuels produced from crops and those from waste, and stopping the production of biofuels as motivated by Annex 1 mitigation measures instead of energy security.

Sadly, the group will not meet again on the issue, as it has been pushed to the Poznan agenda.

In other news, the flex mechanisms group met again. Remember the "big-ticket vs. non-big ticket" argument? Despite the fact that parties were supposed to comply with new headings that were agreed upon, parties still used the 'ticket' identification. This caused a great deal of controversy, as some parties stressed that non-big ticket items could not be ignored, and that the list was too general (which was the problem the first time around). The co-chairs agreed to review new party submissions and compile a feasible report by Monday. In short, still no discussion on the flex mechanisms that has gotten further than analyzing the massive list of issues to be tackled.

And that's all she wrote in the KP. Sunday has been taken as a day of rest for the negotiators, so we'll be posting tomorrow on Monday's progress (hopefully).

Rhiya

]]> Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:55:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/462939 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/462913
For the most part, bridging research, knowledge and policy gaps were the underlying motives behind all discussions. For feasibility's sake, countries also supported a global adaptation system in which substantial reporting requirements and conditional funding were kept to the minimum. The final suggestions in this global, capacity-building adaptation framework that was beginning to take shape was the possibility of establishing governing bodies and funds on adaptation.

The main item which promised progress however, was a proposal written by the African Group for a consolidated adaptation work programme. Learning-by-doing, the sectoral nature of adaptation technology, and the need to recognize the difference between immediate climate shocks and long-term shifts in climatic conditions.

The EU proposed a framework that supported financial resources and investment flows, building partnerships between A1 and non-A1 parties, but many technicalities remained unanswered.

Japan's Earth Simulator System provided relief to concerns surrounding our ability to predict future climates and our ability to understand adaptation needs.

All in all, the African Group proposal and global, capacity building tone made the discussion a positive one. Many groups however, noted the need to move from planning to implementation, citing the stockpiling NAPA's (National Adaptation Programmes of Action) and project proposals that currently are without funding.

Saturday's ECO still hasn't come out, but when it does (and if there is anything groundbreaking) we'll be sure to post on it.

Seeing as Saturday merited three posts on the LCA, we'll keep the upcoming KP one short, and limited to the singular. .

Rhiya
]]> Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:20:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/462913 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/462907
Are we just being pessimists, you ask? After reading that one delegate from the contact group has been quoted to say that "diplomacy had been abandoned" and that negotiators were more interested in attacking one another than taking the process forward, we're hoping we're just being realistic.

The main debate that characterized these frustrations was over incorporating national circumstances into a global mitigation agreement. Many developing nations felt that the only categories for distinguishing among countries should be those used in the Convention, while the US wanted a much more broad and flexible way of determining national circumstances. The EU and Australia joined the US for the most part, stating that further differentiation of actions must take place in whatever future regime is decided upon, and with this extra support the debate continued for a great deal of time. It also prompted a discussion on what exactly was in the group's mandate, and that amendments to the Convention were out of the question.

Finally, Turkey suggested some specific parameters for there differentiations: GDP per capita, energy use per capita, and the Human Development Index. During the showdown, Japan was quick to draw sectoral approaches as a solution to the problem, citing the feasibility of differentiating by sector.

Tuvalu complicated things by proposing that the LCA should not only discuss actions beyond but up to 2012. The overlap between the LCA and KP has been a matter of contention for a while, and this would only contribute to those agitations.

And randomly enough, Cuba called for a 35% reduction in Annex 1 emission by 2020, amidst this extremely bureaucratic debate.

Though agricultural mitigation was brought up in the opening discussions of the LCA, it didn't get any face time in the contact group. Same story with the possibility of levying aviation revenue, and utilizing carbon markets as mitigative funding potentials.

Disjointed is not even the word. Luckily for our morale, the situation in the adaptation room was much more promising. Hang tight until that post goes up in a little while.

Rhiya

Thanks to the photo people at the ENB (Earth News Bulletin) for capturing this G-77 huddle. Don't you kind of wish you knew what the fuss was about?]]> Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:50:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/462907 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/462863
The day proved fairly frustrating within the LCA. The debate over whether or not three contact groups were worth instituting continued, and though they were eventually agreed upon (after a few title changes) time was wasted in the process. Before the groups on mitigation and adaptation convened, a pretty decent discussion on shared vision was held.

Japan proposed a a 50% by 2050 emissions reduction target to be adopted by all, and New Zealand stressed that there cannot be discrepancy between the shared vision of the KP and of the LCA. Highlights also included comments from the International Civil Aviation Organization and Global Business and Industry who both stated the need for compatibility between the two sectors and a climate regime. The gesture was in the interests of self-preservation, as the global aviation system feels threatened by discussions on bunker fuels, and global industry wants to ensure their inclusion in investment for mitigation and adaptation. They stand correct on the recognition of their importance in a global agreement, but their motivations are certainly questionable.

The Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change also spoke on behalf of the UN Declaration concerning their rights, and the necessity of compliance within a climate agreement.

After this scattered discussion, the two contact groups on adaptation and mitigation finally convened. Before we look into that however, the frustration felt by many within the LCA is worth noting. Nobody could pinpoint why it was so difficult to ratify the three contact groups, and were royally unhappy about the two days they lost as a result. Having Sunday designated as a rest-day from negotiations exacerbated the situation, as delegates increasingly felt their time was running out on what should eventually become the major pillars in a new agreement.

Reports from the two contact groups will be up soon, and remember to take a look at the ECO's if you can. There's nothing like some good NGO perspective to brighten up your day.

Rhiya

P.S How insanely cool is the picture? Known as Kente, the fabric is traditionally Ghanaian, and if you ask us - totally rockin'. ]]> Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:10:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/462863 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/462147
For any newcomers to the idea, check out our first post on the sectoral basics: http://www.tigblog.org/group/
accessaccra/post/461163

Specific victories for sectoral progress included concrete proposals from the EU to focus on the main, heavily-emitting developing world industrial sectors, and to use a harmonious combination of carbon markets, and technological and financial assistance (between A1 and non-A1 parties). South Korea voiced their full support, as they had brought an almost identical proposal to the table.

Japan has formally abandoned their two proposals stipulating that sectoral approaches should replace national targets within Annex 1, and that uniform sectoral targets should be imposed worldwide. This will absolutely facilitate further discussions, as without Japan's support these two points that have slowed negotiations are almost entirely moot.

Japan also presented some conclusive work on what would happen if a sectoral approach was applied to the energy-related sector [alone], worldwide. All in all, a three percent reduction in carbon emissions from 1990 levels would occur by 2020. Clearly not enough, which was a likely motivation for their willingness to open up a sectoral approach as supplemental to national targets - a very good sign that they are keeping their eyes on large mid-term targets.

The remainder of the sectoral leader's proposal greatly resembled the EU and South Korea, but the three do differ on the emphasis placed on either technological or financial assistance, or a carbon-based credit market.

The sources of financial and technological aid and by what means they will be transferred remained contentious issues throughout the discussion, especially raised by non-Annex 1 parties. A great deal of progress was made to ensure that the true issues that need attention emerged, but the legalism and proceduralism of old reared their heads throughout.

What issues are within the LCA's mandate and which should be pushed to the KP (since they are both holding sectoral workshops) was a question that received more attention than it deserved. What parties need to realize is that both AWG's are important, mutually dependent entities for a just and effective Copenhagen package. Barriers cannot be put up between them; they must work together.

To end on a happy note, South Korea has joined South Africa as leading emerging economies on climate change action. SK has announced that next year will mark the emergence of a real emissions reduction target that will carry them through 2020. Definitely putting all of us in Annex-1 to shame.

Dynamic day in the LCA, for sure. Check back later today for updates on Day 3.

Rhiya]]> Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:17:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/462147 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/461847
To say that it was successful is a pretty sizable understatement.

First of all, a quick explanation of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. Basically, it's LULUCF's non-Annex 1 sister; it focuses mainly on deforestation and degradation in non-Annex 1 parties, and how the developed world can act to reduce emissions from those sectors. Pretty self-explanatory.

Saudi Arabia (believe it or not) emerged as a leader for the REDD movement during the workshop, making the extremely important declaration that REDD has two benefits: reducing emissions and maintaining some of the world's largest carbon sinks. They proceeded to suggest a funding approach based on levying logging and timber industries (two of the main deforestation drivers).

The Saudi statement was one of many warmly received positive developments. Though there was little time for NGO interventions at the closing of the workshop, many organizations (including CAN) found that they were already in agreement with the negotiations that had included phrases like "REDD must be in addition to deep Annex 1 cuts" and constant prioritization of indigenous peoples' rights.

Generally, discussions contributed to clarification, instead of the usual back-and-forth rhetoric. Genuine commonalities that could potentially contribute to a consensus agreement emerged; one NGO representative said the workshop could "potentially transform the governance of the climate change regime" (due to the inclusion of indigenous rights, biodiversity and poverty).

Specific breakthroughs included the G-77/China agreeing to support the inclusion of a whole range of activities proposed by some developing parties: conservation and stabilization of large existing forests, reducing deforestation emissions, sustainable forest management, enhancing carbon stocks, and afforestation/reforestation.

Also, methodology questions were agreed to be resolvable (though not yet totally resolved). Whether or not to base the financing off of a market or fund has become a slightly more clear argument with the revelation of new funding approaches on a market-linked, non-offset, or blended basis. And finally, Norway committed $2.6 billion to REDD over the next 5 years.

The pieces of the puzzle have no doubt become more clear as a result of these discussions. The activities and the funding necessary to support them have grown more solid, but there remains to be a framework through which it will all be connected. That would be the next, logical step, and while there is no other REDD body convening in Accra, parties have been encouraged to engage in separate talks to try and reach some conclusive goals.

All in all, a decent day's work for the "Workshop on REDD, conservation and sustainable forest management." We might just call you the REDD rangers, for now.

Rhiya]]> Sat, 23 Aug 2008 19:40:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/461847 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/461813
The contact group on LULUCF re-convened today to kick off the day's AWG-KP session. The focus was directed entirely upon a chart that summarized the accounting options currently on the table. Contentious issues include whether or not to focus upon forest management first, and choosing between gross-net and net-net accounting.

The main difference between the two accounting approaches emerges in the baseline: gross-net accounting fails to consider LULUCF emissions in the baseline itself, while net-net accounting does. To the logical observer, gross-net accounting is completely unbalanced and would make even a small reduction in emissions seem substantial, and as a result it is extremely popular with the less enthusiastic and committed members in the KP.

The discussion that followed the unveiling of the chart centered around refining any unclear points (it was instantly accepted and adopted as a main structure for the week's negotiations). The UK moved to push the talks along by stressing the feasibility and appeal of presented options, while Brazil and Tuvalu urged parties to clarify their positions and resolutions on factoring out (remember our last post on the LULUCF sneak-attack from A1 Parties?).

The adoption of the chart was certainly a step forward (as they could have spent days debating even that), but it will be interesting to see the future outcomes as certain countries (ahem, Canada) are forced to solidify their commitments (without the nonsense of factoring out all of their liability, etc.) and truly come to the table.

The next contact group session on the flexible mechanisms (CDM, emissions trading, and Joint Implementation) offered less progress. Annex II of the AWG-KP's report from Bonn outlines the specific issues that need attention concerning these three ways in which parties can meet their reduction targets. Instead of tackling this list however, parties in attendance simply argued over how they would approach the list.

Categorizing items as "big-ticket" or "non-big ticket' proved too controversial, and the championed approach ended up dividing the issues into a) those being considered in other UNFCCC bodies b) items which would require amendments to the entire Kyoto Protocol and c) rule-based items within the group's mandate. Imagine the intensity of the discussion when they actually start to look at the list!

Finally, the last contact group on "other issues" was occupied with the possible inclusion of new greenhouse gases. Parties took an emissions-based approach to the discussion, as they simply launched their own separate views into the atmosphere and just let them hang there. Basically, some parties want the inclusion of more gases (like HFC's and PFC's), some don't, and many just don't understand how they are to figure out which gases are harmful.

Global warming potentials (GWP's) are measures of how much a given mass of greenhouse gases is estimated to contribute to global warming (by how long they remain in the atmosphere and their greenhouse effect). The IPCC originally utilized this method when ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, but other parties are now calling for a diversification of metrics. Things are getting more complicated, as opposed to less.

Despite the lack of conclusive work on greenhouse gases, the party is scheduled to reconvene on Day 3 to discuss a new topic: spillover effects.

Oh, and about the picture - grass flip-flops! It was too cool to leave out, no matter how irrelevant.

Rhiya]]> Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:34:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/461813 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/461163
A workshop on "sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions" convened with the mission of clearing the air around the sectoral issue in the interests of potentially including it in a post-2012 agreement. While work will no doubt be done over the next week to achieve this, the opening session did nothing but project the plethora of sectoral definitions and interpretations out into the atmosphere for everyone to puzzle over.

Before the group reconvenes, it might be good to take a second and scan over the various components parties envision in a new agreement. If the sectoral approach had one description, this would be the place where I would give it to you. Excitingly enough however, it is a totally ambiguous concept just waiting to take shape. All I can offer is that it generally works to set and monitor separate emissions reductions targets by industrial or commercial sector (cement production, for example). The idea that this approach would replace national Annex-1 emissions reduction targets entirely is also being tossed around, but not particularly popular with anyone but the A1 parties. .

Below are the talking points raised by some of the attending parties:

The Philippines (for the G-77/China) stressed that sectoral approaches cannot replace national commitments for developed countries, and should be supplemental to any targets already ratified by the nations.

The EU created a divide between sectoral approaches as pertaining to technology transfer and policy cooperation and those that utilize carbon markets (such as emissions trading). As confusing as this seems, it basically creates sectors within sectors, intended to deal with specifically policy, tech transfer, or emissions trading.

India just flat out expressed concerns with introducing any kind of sectoral approach.

Bangladesh asserted that sectoral approaches should involve transferring sector-specific technologies and best practices (without the burden of intellectual property rights) to Least Developed Countries (LDC's) from the global north.

China proposed analyzing the sectoral context in each participating country, and then combining the findings into one global plan.

Logically, Uganda identified the need to define the scope of a sectoral approach by spotlighting specific sectors to work within.

And finally Japan, the original purveyors of a sectoral plan delivered the most comprehensive definition which would include: analyzing sectoral emissions, averaging the emissions reduction potentials, determining reduction targets for developed countries, and hosting tech transfer the promote measurable, reportable, and verifiable (MRV) actions in the developing world.

Phew. Now that you've seen how diverse and nit-picky the sectoral approach can be, you're pretty much ready to witness it all coming together.

And so, we wait.

Rhiya]]> Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:55:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/461163 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/461063
Land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) is a cost-effective way of offsetting emissions via activities that deal solely with our friends, the trees. Removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere by planting trees or managing forests and sinking emissions by curbing deforestation are the two main pillars of the LULUCF sector, which is outlined in Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol.

Despite the fact that Parties concluded way back when that afforestation (planting where no tree has been planted before) and reforestation are the two pillars of LULUCF, the options for consideration have multiplied dramatically during recent conventions. Some of the relatively minor issues within the LULUCF contact group in Accra included whether or not to benefit / penalize certain types and age structures of forests, and how long commitment periods would be.

More significantly, Canada presented a "forward-looking baseline approach". This would factor out any natural disturbances, natural emissions or human-induced impacts, essentially relieving them of any liability or greenhouse emissions from business-as-usual practices.

New Zealand was right by Canada's side when they proposed the inclusion of Harvested Wood Products (HWP) as a carbon sink. Some countries believe that cutting down trees for furniture production can be cited as a sink because of carbon dioxide storage capabilities. It's an extremely complicated argument on behalf of which we are seeking a clear explanation. For now, just sit tight with the furniture example.

Wetland conservation was the last major (and dare I say silly) LULUCF proposal. Combined with the HWP and "forward-looking baseline approach", it has become clear that parties are attempting to generate extremely cheap and plentiful LULUCF credits, with very little consideration taken on behalf of the environment.Chris Henschel's blog on Forests and Climate Change sheds some more light on this issue (http://climateforests.blogspot.com/):

"Most of the options assessed would result in an increase in the emissions budget of industrialized Parties with reduction commitments and therefore also an increase in the supply of tradeable credits (which would decrease supply and price, reducing the effectiveness of the carbon market to spurr innovation and greater emission reductions)."

A1 Parties are making little headway and evading responsibility on the LULUCF issue. Outside one of the contact group meeting rooms, one seasoned delegate is rumored to have said that the session felt like "deja-vu" from the Marrakesh talks in 2001. That was seven years ago. Enough said.

Rhiya



]]> Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:18:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/461063 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/461035
Focusing on "concrete ideas and proposals" and identifying "common views" within the establishment of a new, post-Kyoto agreement were atop the idealogical agenda for the AWG-LCA. This is about as warm and fuzzy as the UNFCCC gets, so just for the record, aw shucks.

The day's session didn't amount to too much however, as three contact groups were proposed but not confirmed. Enhanced action on adaptation and mitigation composed the first two groups, and the last dealt with international cooperation on technology and financing for adaptation and mitigation (as you might remember, these cover the four main pillars of the Bali Action Plan). Day 3 will host a re-opening of these discussions concerning whether or not to establish the three separate bodies.

This lack of ratification later became an object of great criticism within the NGO world. For those of you who followed the Bonn blog and talks, the preponderance of adaptation issues on the agenda was hard to miss. With the contact group on adaptation being such a peripheral occurrence in Accra, concerns have arisen that the LCA is not building off of work done in June, and that the issue could potentially slip through the cracks. With more ramifications of climate change being felt every day (and especially in the developing world), the issue of helping people adapt to climate change is more important than ever.

The Climate Action Network (CAN) outlined the following issues for LCA consideration in reference to adaptation:

1. Clear adaptation commitments for Annex-1 Parties (technology transfers and financing within developing nations).
2. A specific financing plan with A1 Parties delivering the majority of the funds.
3. The possible establishment of a specific body devoted to adaptation (Subsidiary Body on Adaptation - SBA).

These needs raised by CAN are not novel ideas, but it is high time they were addressed. Adaptation is as equally important as mitigation in our slowly-warming world, and it cannot be left out of any new agreement. Keep your toes crossed (I believe your fingers are already occupied in the name of bunker fuels) for the establishment and quick engagement of these contact groups tomorrow!

Rhiya

]]> Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:42:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/461035 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/461017
After what we hear was a mind-blowing opening ceremony complete with traditional Ghanaian music and dance, introductory speeches from the President of Ghana and UNFCCC Executive secretary kicked off the talks in Accra yesterday. As predicted, the tone was one of strong commitment and a profound recognition of the desperate climate situations people are already facing globally. Africa was highlighted as an especially contentious area (specifically in the context of adaptation and climate-resilient development), which naturally transitioned into a discussion about the necessity of Annex 1 (Parties in the developed world) leadership.

The AWG-KP session then began with several parties stressing the need for A1 Parties to take the lead on adopting concrete emissions reduction targets. In recognition that this must happen in Poland in December, Parties immediately focused their attention on the means by which reductions will occur, and established three specific contact groups. Think rules and tools, rules and tools.

Emissions trading and the project-based mechanisms constituted one group, land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) was another, and the third was composed of "other issues", likely to include adding other greenhouse gases to the monitored list and possible approaches to a sectoral program.

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is a project-based mechanism that will likely inspire much of the discussion in contact group number 1. The CDM allows developed nations to fund projects that reduce emissions in non-A1 Parties, as an alternative to more expensive emissions sinks on their own turf. Questions surrounding the equitable geographic distribution of these projects have arisen and will certainly appear on the AWG's upcoming agendas. Don't worry, we can't wait either. ☺

Concerning sectors and source categories, expect the third contact group to host an in-depth discussion on bunker fuels (international maritime and aviation transportation. As stated in our first post, bunker fuels are off the agenda after Accra, so things should start to progress soon.

And fear not for my counting skills, I know I skipped contact group number two. See an upcoming post for a more focused exploration of LULUCF and the relevant issues. Hopefully this surface info from the KP's work thus far has temporarily satiated your policy hunger!

Rhiya]]> Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:24:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/461017 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667 http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/460341
P.J and I will be reading all of the important paper coming out of the talks and boiling it down to the bare but thrilling facts for all of you to enjoy. Read our posts in the Bonn blog for more info on UNFCCC structure, progressing agenda items, and most importantly, the overwhelming number of acronyms you’ll be hit with in the next 6 days (http://projects.takingitglobal.org/cydbonn). Our handy-dandy decoder ring posted on the Bonn Project Page (http://projects.takingitglobal.org/cydbonn/docs/) will be just the thing to help you out!

And now, what you actually came here for: info on the negotiations.

Only two of the bodies of the UNFCCC are convening this week. The AWG-LCA (Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action) will be negotiating on specific issues within the Bali Action Plan (BAP) on the road to ratifying a final, post-Kyoto agreement in Copenhagen in 2009. Simultaneously, the AWG-KP (Ad Hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol) plans to continue working on the means by which parties will reach emissions targets effectively, in the hopes that the groundwork will be laid for Parties to negotiate strict reductions targets in Poland in December.

The five categories of the BAP (a shared vision for long-term cooperative action, mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer, and finance) are all contentious issues in the LCA, but it appears that sectoral approaches to emissions reductions and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD) will be dominating the scene this week in Accra. Many parties have made submissions suggesting that monitoring emissions from industrial and commercial sectors would only be supplemental to binding national reduction targets, but many ambiguities around the issue remain. REDD is in a similar situation, as the entire structure surrounding credit financing and market regulations is up in the air.

Lastly, we are expecting a rise in prominence of bunker fuels issues (maritime and international aviation emissions) on the Ghana agenda, since this is the last time it is scheduled to be discussed before Copenhagen in 2009. Keep your fingers crossed for efficient negotiations so that we can keep this goal a realistic one, and that it doesn’t get pushed to Poland or neglected entirely.

Fear not if some of these issues remain unclear at the moment; as the negotiations progress we will be exploring the specifics in depth. What is worth noting now is the significance of the impending talks. Ghana is a major milestone on the road to ratifying a post-Kyoto agreement that includes participation from all of humanity, but as stated repeatedly in NGO preparations for these talks, we need real commitments from truly committed Parties. We need viable proposals to be brought to the table by engaged participants, and we need it now.
The resolutions made in Accra will no doubt resonate throughout a post-Kyoto agreement, so we must not doubt the significance of the present situation. Hopefully you’re as excited as we are, so keep checking back in with us. We promise to post updates as frequently as possible, but we definitely need your help in spreading the word about the blog. Tell anyone who’ll listen!

Keep it pre-industrial until next time,

Rhiya

P.S Forgive me for skipping the introductions – I got a little overexcited at the prospect of sharing info on Ghana with you. I’m Rhiya, currently working as a Programs Assistant in the Climate Change corner of TIG’s office. I enjoy air-drying laundry, Hebrew-reggae and curling up in front of an EPA-certified stove with the latest in climate change policy.








]]> Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:10:00 EDT http://www.tigblog.org/group/accessaccra/post/460341 43.4333333 -79.666666743.4333333-79.6666667