Implications of the Cancun Agreement: Solomon Islands Perspective

1. Implications of the Cancun Agreement: Solomon Islands Perspective Pacific Climate Change Roundtable 14 to 18 March, Alofi, Niue

2. Key Outcomes Shared Vision • Temperature target < 2C Review of adequacy by 2015 - 1.5C • first review to start in 2013 and conclude by 2015 based on best available science •  Long term goal for reducing emission by 2015 - consideration at COP17 Mitigation • Targets Deferred to 2011 Agreed to work on transparency •  Agreements to initiate national action plans to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

3. Cont’d Adaptation • Adaptation Framework & Committee established as well as a Loss and Damage work program agreed to in the Cancun Agreement • Mechanism for Loss and Damage, AOSIS propose an insurance based mechanism to address permanent loss and damage as a result of climate change. • Work programme on loss and damage as a result of climate impacts e.g. from hurricanes and sea level rise – decision 2012.

4. Cont’d Finance • Green Climate Fund - to manage funding for climate change targeted at US$100B per year by 2020. Small island states will have 2 members on the Board of that institution – design 2011. • Adaptation Committee - that would provide guidance and support to developing countries in developing national programs to adapt to climate change – design 2011. •  Adaptation Fund operationalised - countries can apply directly to the Adaptation Fund for grant financing for projects – have to set up NIEs – Regional workshops. •  US$30B available as Fast Start funds for 2010 to 2012 – increased transparency

5. Cont’d Deforestation: • agreed to slow, halt and reverse destruction of trees and agree the rules for delivering it and for monitoring progress. REDD + • the Agreement reaffirms that adequate, predictable support and resources is given to slow, halt and reverse forest cover and carbon loss. Technology Development • Institutional Framework agreed • Technology Mechanism – Technology Executive Committee and Climate Technology Centre and Network Capacity Building: Institutional Framework deferred Legal Form:  Deferred Future of the Kyoto Protocol: Deferred

6. Status of Negotiations • The Agreement is weak and ineffective but provides a life line especially those on life rafts a chance to try and rescue • Emissions cuts on the table under the Agreement will see temperature rise to 5 degrees Celsius, which would be catastrophic for SIDS and LDCs • From here on leadership from Annex 1 (industrialized countries) is needed to take things forward. In Cancun there was a lack of that as no one wanted to make a second commitment period except to do so at a voluntary basis. • Good will and trust emerged from Cancun is fragile and will be tested and tried if pledges made does not deliver transparently in Durban

7. Cont’d • The Umbrella Group have pursued an agenda where emission reduction is decided by politicians rather than science • Gains made in Cancun could be seen from a process perspective, it sets up structure and system to build on as the negotiations moves to Durban. • Japan is taking a more aggressive role internationally and began the negotiations by announcing that it refuse to take on a second commitment period.       

8. Unresolved Issues • Emission reductions • Financial commitments • Response measures, polluter pays principle and the concept of historical responsibilities. AOSIS under adaptation is also seeking a mechanism to address loss and damage costs due to climate change. • On Technology, links to finance and intellectual property rights were not bridged during the negotiations. • Mitigation, no agreement on the establishment of National Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMAs) registry. Developing countries wanted it to be tied to finance; developed countries on the other hand wanted it to be independent. • On REDD plus, outstanding issues relating to finance and issues relating to monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) remain outstanding.

9. Cont’d • Finance: There was not sufficient time to look at details of the climate change funds, there was divergent views on financial boards. Concerns were registered on the layer of bureaucracy that could prove burdensome to making operationalising the mechanism. • Capacity Building: Developing states wanted provisions of capacity building as legally binding and linked to finance

10. Implication of the Cancun Outcomes Emission Reduction Targets • AOSIS and LDCs have been calling for limiting temperature increase for less than 1.5 deg.C • For the survival of our ecosystems, ocean resources and the environment we deep on • Delay and failure of Annex I countries to discuss emmission reduction targets Funding • operationalisation of the Green Fund given that the WB is the trustee , an issue that is contested by many developing countries including the civil society given the institutions undemocratic system (weighted votes) and poor green record. • Also sources of funding to the fund is vague • Accessibility and requirements REDD+ • positive outcome • Provides an avenue to pursue National REDD+ programmes and activities Fast track financing • For countries of the Pacific must be adequate, predictable, new, additional and grant based. • Financial pledges made be formally brought into the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process where we have a say and an allocation on how it is used. • There must also be balanced allocation of these resources between adaptation and mitigation

11. Cont’d Legal Form of a future agreement – Developing countries have been calling that any future climate change instrument must be legally binding Future of the Kyoto Protocol – the only binding agreement in place that binds Annex I parties to reduce quantifiable amounts of GHGs. SIDS and LDCs are calling for the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012