UNFCCC: Submissions by Parties coming in for AWG-LCA
One after another do the submissions from States to the 6th session of the Ad-hoc Working-Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA 6) in Bonn come online. I just printed out some and will read it soon.
Here a Mail from Oscar with the first thoughts on it. 🙂
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: [climate09-int] latest copenhagen negotiating positions (AHW-LCA)
Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 21:41:33 +0200
From: Oscar Reyes <oscarxxx@xxx>
To: No Carbon Trade <firstname.lastname@example.org>, „CJN!“
<email@example.com>, climateorg copenhagen
New negotiating documents can be found here, including US position
Article on US position:
A few very very quick, sketchy and incomplete notes:
On deforestation, the US proposes something called „REDD plus“ (p20-21)
REDD plus is also mentioned by the Africa group — any ideas on what
the „plus“ is all about?
Bolivia*s principles for REDD-plus are:
„1. A fund based mechanism allows for equitable distribution of funds.
2. It will not allow for off-set mechanisms.
3. Is more likely to ensure environmental integrity.
4. Is able to protect the rights of indigenous peoples and local
communities as there is no
transfer of rights of carbon ownership to the market.
5. Ensures sovereignty and national as well as local control over
REDD-plus activities. Where
the REDD plus activities must be framed under the national laws and
policies and to not
affect the national interests.
6. Forest conservation can be funded, including adaptation activities
related to forests.“
The EU fleshes out, amongst other things proposals for „sectoral
crediting“ and „sectoral trading“ (aka various ways to expand carbon
Korea offers a whole paper advocating a (National Appropriate Mitigation
Actions (NAMA) „crediting mechanism“ ie. carbon market credits in
relation to benchmarks set in non-binding national action plans
Norway has a proposal on NAMA carbon credits that ostensibly looks quite
South Africa suggests that “ NAMAs may comprise individual mitigation
actions, sets of actions or programmes. Developing countries may choose
from a variety of forms of action, including SD PAMS, REDD, programmatic
CDM, no lose sectoral crediting baselines and others“ (these are mostly
market-mechanisms, although Sustainable Development Policies And
Measures (SD PAMS) and REDD can be market-based or regulatory….
By contrast to all the above, Brazil (mitigation ii paper) seems to
suggest that NAMAs should not generate offset credits.
China, amongst other things, restates that
„The developed country Parties shall fulfill their financial commitments
Convention in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner; any funds
outside the UNFCCC shall not be regarded as the fulfillment of
developed country Parties for the implementation of Article 4.3 of the
the Bali Action Plan.“
ie. World Bank CIFs would not be counted towards financial commitments
It talks of sectoral approaches without explicitly tying to market-based
A further joint submission for Australia, Belarus, Canada, EU, Norway
and Switzerland sets out some proposed targets – the EU*s stance of
increasing its commitment from 20 to 30% reductions is now qualified as
implying that the latter will count LULUCF (land use land use change and
Party / Reduction by 2020 / Baseyear / Inclusion of LULUCF / Status
Australia /5% to -15% or -25%/ 2000/ Y/ Officially announced
Belarus /-5% to -10% /1990 /TBD /Under consideration
Canada /-20% 2006 /TBD /Officially announced
European Union /-20 to -30% 1990/ N for -20%,Y for -30% /Adopted by legislation
Norway /-30% /1990 /Y /Officially announced
Switzerland /-20 to -30% /1990/Y/ Consultations in progress
Ukraine /-20% /1990/ TBD/ Under consideration
De Wittenstraat 25
1052 AK Amsterdam