ADP Text 11/6/15 Revision: Section I: Transparency of Action & Support (Pt2)

The only reason I am including this as a separate post is because I ran out of space. Therefore it should be read as a direct continuation of;

http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/adp-text-11615-revision-section-i.html

Paragraph 152 - This is fine provided it reads;

"The governing body shall elaborate modalities, standards and guidelines to ensure mitigation outcomes traded internationally and used against commitments are Real, Permanent and Verifiable."

If the terms "Real," "Permanent" and "Verifiable" need to be defined further that can be done in the definitions section.

Paragraph 153 -  This is fine provided it doesn't mandate the 1st session - instead simply stating that the governing body will establish those rules.

Paragraph 154 -  This is a very difficult area because obviously there needs to be common accounting and tracking rules.  However it is not an area that is particularly well developed.

For example there are really three types internationally transferable mitigation outcomes - carbon credits, Additional/Conditional joint projects and cross-border projects such as forestry management. I think that these all need to be treated differently and the Additional/Conditional projects have yet to be formally adopted let alone put into practice

Therefore rather then trying to define all the rules here it is better to state that rules are to be established and allow them to be developed separately from the agreement itself. So;

"Decides that a common accounting and tracking rules system is to be established for the purpose of safeguarding environmental integrity and avoiding double counting of internationally transferable mitigation outcomes of cooperative arrangements. That is to include the comprehensive recording of activities covered by cooperative arrangements resulting in internationally transferable mitigation outcomes, either at the UNFCCC level or at the national level, with transparent, comprehensive and publicly available information in English, ensuring synergies with existing UNFCCC tools and processes;

As you can see I've merged (b) into the paragraph because it just establishes that the rules to be created are to include comprehensive recording that will be publicly available and the system will work with other UNFCCC processes. I've excluded (c) and (d) they are too specific at this point.

The problem of the subject area not currently being advanced enough is rather highlighted by (a). Double-entry bookkeeping is something that I actually am qualified to talk about. As such while I understand that it is a good starting point for a discussion it is not sophisticated enough for the task. In fact it seems like a bit of a joke at my expense.

Paragraph 155 -  Again this issue of sharing is a complicated by the type of transferable outcome you're talking about.

It is of course impossible for the outcome of carbon credits to be shared - the principle being that an emission in one place is off-set by a carbon sink elsewhere. Likewise although it's a new idea I don't think that Additional/Conditional joint project should be shared. Instead the reduction should only be counted in the nation it occurred although the donor nation can take credit for for providing the support. However when you are talking about cross-border joint actions then obviously the results do need to be shared between the nations co-operating.

As such I would exclude (a) because it really poses more questions then it answers.

I would also exclude (b). Firstly because it is so poorly written it's taken me close to a day to work out what it means. Also saying that in order to co-operate the results must be greater then if no co-operation had taken place you are discouraging co-operation. Based on the principle of collective responsibility this agreement is supposed to be doing the opposite and encouraging co-operation.

As such here I would adopt;

"Decides that cooperative arrangements with internationally transferable mitigation outcomes must lead to a net decrease and/or net avoidance of global greenhouse gas emissions."

After all the purpose of the exercise is to reduce emissions.


Paragraph 156 - I consider this to fine provided (a).(iii) is removed because as above it discourages co-operation.

Paragraph 157 -  I consider this fine as is because although carbon credits can be used to finance mitigation/adaptation actions I don't think they should be counted as formal climate finance because the purchaser is buying the right to emit more carbon rather then making a donation.

Paragraph 158 -  I consider this to be fine as is.

Paragraph 159 -  I consider this fine provided the deadline of COP22 is removed because I think it will take more time then that.

Paragraph 160 - I consider this fine as is. It simply affirms that the technical experts on finance can help set the accounting rules.

17:30 on 10/11/15 (UK date).