Two weeks ago I published the post that can hopefully be read above laying out my view of the general concepts of how mitigation should function within the agreement. However that still left open the question of the actual text that would appear within the final agreement.
At the time I said that the latest 11/6/15 revision had become unreadable let alone unworkable. So instead I went back to the original non-paper and the 9/2/15 revision. I found this to provide a reasonable framework for a final text although it requires some modification and a lot of simplification.
Section D: Mitigation (9/2/15):
P13.1 - Here I think Option 1 is more then sufficient without the bracketed sections. While it acknowledges CBDR and sustainable development it makes clear that all parties have to take action to keep global temperatures below 2/1.5C.
P13.2 - I would simplify this entirely by merging the various options to read;
"Parties' efforts to take the form of a long-term zero emissions sustainable development pathway consistent with science and the findings of the / Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (e.g. 40–70 per cent below 2010 levels by 2050)."
This further clarifies that in order to achieve the goal laid out in P13.1 all parties must undertake mitigation actions consistent with the scientific/IPCC assessment of what is required. The fact that it acknowledges sustainable development again allows for developing nations to continue to develop while working towards that goal.
P14 - I consider this to be fine as is because it provides further reassurance to all nations - but particularly developing ones - that they won't be bullied into taking action if it means - for example - forcing their population to starve.
P15 - Here I consider Option 1 to be fine in the form;
"In accordance with Article 4 of the Convention, all Parties to progressively enhance the level of ambition of their mitigation commitments / contributions / actions such that each commitment / contribution / action is of a type, scope, scale and coverage more / no less ambitious than those previously undertaken under this agreement or the Convention or its Kyoto Protocol"
Having established in P13.1 and P13.2 the long term goal parties are trying to achieve there's no need to re-state it here. You merely need to prevent parties from backsliding from previous commitments. This wording achieves that.
P16 - I would massively simplify this by merging many of the numerous options into a paragraph reading;
"In accordance with the principles of the Convention and its Article 4, each Party to prepare, communicate and implement successive nationally determined mitigation commitments / contributions / actions, which are to be quantified or quantifiable, which can be aggregated, and which are transparent, comparable and/or verifiable. To this end they must be submitted in the form laid out in technical annex (X)"
http://i414.photobucket.com/albums/pp226/Sovereign16/MitigationAnnex_zpsojfgg40t.jpg
The above link should show you a very rough example of what I expect this technical annex to look like. However if what is turning out to be the most complicated IT task in the world has failed it is simply a table with the sections that need to be included in a nation's submission such as; Type, Scope, Coverage, Baseline etc alongside the rules governing what information is included in each section. So for example;
- Type - "Parties are to submit either an absolute reduction or an intensity reduction in line with their CBDR."
P17 - This simply duplicates obligations laid out in other parts of the section and as such is needless and needs to be removed.
P18 - Here Option 1 is fine as is because it simply establishes that nation's submissions will be subjected to a peer review process but leaves the details of that process to be dealt with by a separate, dedicated section of the agreement.
P19 - I consider this to be covered by the section of the technical annex that allows for a Conditional/Additional action so I'm not strictly sure this paragraph is needed. However I can certainly see no harm in enshrining the concept of co-operation between nations separately within the agreement in order to encourage it.
P20 - This is an area I hope to cover more fully in the section dealing with the review process. However it is clear that these mitigation submissions will include information that nations consider sensitive to national security such as the functioning of nuclear power plants or those hydroelectric dams that the Iraqis and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) seem to be fighting over constantly at the moment.
Therefore what I envisage is there for to be three levels of technical detail to be submitted. The first of these sees the form laid out in the technical annex to function almost of an index card that will be publicly available to people such as me. After all there is a lot of difference between saying that a nation intends to reduce emissions by improving the function of a dam and saying exactly how they intend to do improve a dam's function. The second level of detail will be kept private amongst accredited parties as part of the peer review process which possibly could take place online as part of a secure network. Whether a nation has provided enough detail at this level is something that can be argued over during the peer review process. Finally there is the highly detailed, proprietary information that isn't considered part of the process but which nations can choose to share amongst their close friends and allies if they so wish.
To my mind Option 3 here allows for that scenario.
At around 18:25 on 22/7/15 (UK date) it should be obvious to all that I've got at least four more paragraphs to cover. However having wasted a good hour swearing at computers I'll be back to finish up tomorrow.
Edited at around 16:25 on 23/7/15 (UK date) to add;
P21 - This is unnecessary and should be removed because the rest of the section not only establishes that nations should draw up low emissions strategies but offers detailed guidance on how to go about it.
P22 - Many forests do cross national borders so this is required and fine as is without the bracketed text about providing an alternative.
P23 - As I mentioned in discussing the general concepts for this section the rules governing market based mechanisms are not as advanced as they need to be. Therefore I think the specifics are best dealt with in the technical annex rather then being set in stone in the agreement text. However there does need to be reference to them in the text to ensure that they are included in any future version of the annex. To that end I think that Options 2&5 are not specific enough while Options 3&4 are too specific to the point of restricting further development in the area. For example Option 4 defines market based mechanisms as only the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) or any for of of carbon credit trading scheme.
Therefore I support Option 1 with only a few minor changes;
P23 - Reading as; "In meeting their commitments /contributions /actions parties may make use of market mechanisms and actions including in the land-use sector in accordance with rules and provisions adopted by the governing body of this Protocol in order to ensure environmental integrity by ensuring that:
- Transfers of mitigation outcomes or units between Parties can be used to meet their contributions/commitments/actions under the new agreement.
- Units emanating from UNFCCC-approved mechanisms, including REDD-plus mechanisms will be transferable and can be used to meet contributions/commitments/actions of Parties under the new agreement.
- Mitigation outcomes and units emanating from mechanisms outside the UNFCCC can be used to meet contributions/commitments/actions of Parties under the new agreement provided that they meet conformity requirements established by the COP."
P23.2 - I consider this fine as is without the reference to a cap so it reads; "The use of market mechanisms shall be supplementary to domestic action. Domestic action shall account for the majority of the emission reductions required to fulfil each Party’s commitment."
23.3 - I consider this fine as is.
23.4 - I consider this fine as is because the intention is that market based mechanism supplement direct funding such as through the Green Climate Fund (GCF).
23.5 - I consider this fine as is.
23.6 - I consider this fine as is.
P24 - Here I support Option 3 because it requires all parties to give consideration, in their submissions, to the needs of less capable nations. This is essential to establishing a capacity building element to the peer review process. The wording also places an obligation on the COP to strengthen existing mechanisms and develop new mechanisms to aid with this capacity building. However it stops short of being too prescriptive because the answer may well be something that we've not thought of yet. I would though exclude the sentence about poverty eradication being the first and overriding priority because CBDR is already well established particularly in P14. However that particular phrase seems to provide an opt out for developing nations.
17:00 on 23/7/15 (UK date).
No comments:
Post a Comment