Quick Stop on Durban COP-December 9
9 December 2011 | DURBAN | 2130 | The Ecosystem Marketplace team is calling a night in Durban. We will be in transit tomorrow but we hope to provide a wrap-up on Sunday.
9 December 2011 | DURBAN | 1940 GMT | The formal negotiations for these texts have wrapped for the night, but bilateral and ndabo talks continue.
9 December 2011 | DURBAN | 1830 GMT |
REDD: LCA Negotiators are still locked in a closed-door session that also considers elements of KP (the "ndabo"). The text reportedly pushes all major decisions to COP 18 and contains vague commitments beyond 2012. Our sources say it has the backing of developed countries, while developing countries are pushing for a more concrete proposal.
9 December 2011 | DURBAN | 1730 GMT |
REDD: The text that's almost on the table going into the home stretch here in Durban has been narrowed from more than five REDD finance options down to one - and Ecosystem Marketplace is privy to an under the table look at the results of some last minute compromise.
Results-based approaches are at the top of the list, a big sticking point for US and some other countries' support of REDD+.
Regarding compromise language, unconfirmed countries put forth the text "...market based approaches could be developed by the COP," to which Australia and Japan added the word "...including" ("...market based approaches could be developed, [including] by the COP").
The word "including" is one a few words still bracketed - so is the question of the level of MRV accountability ("...ensuring environmental integrity, requirements for robust [national] measurement, reporting and verification are met...").
Observers speculate as to whether the addition of "including" opens up finance to market based approaches outside of the COP or just more firmly reiterates its restriction to the COP. Considering the source of the addition - Japan, which has already bilaterally supported REDD+ feasibility-stage projects outside of the COP - it's highly likely that the former is the case.
Despite NGOs' continued concerns about social and environmental safeguards in the near-term text, one observer says that "despite this, countries still feel it is appropriate to give a signal that carbon markets could be suitable funding for REDD in the future."
Indeed, the text makes reference to a wide range of funding options, including market to non-market (fund-) based, bilateral and multilateral and alternative sources. As a caveat, though, you can reasonably expect some minor changes to the above text before it's all said and done.
9 December 2011 | DURBAN | 1700 GMT |
LULUCF: The text that is prospectively going to ministers (still unseen outside of closed door sessions) leaves a few issues unresolved - issues that will likely be retained as bargaining chips for broader Kyoto Protocol debates.
Will Annex I countries set their reference levels according to projected scenarios or decide to revert back to rules for the first commitment period? The latter option would continue to allow countries to "opt in" to accounting for emissions from managed forests and crop and grazing land.
The former could enable them to establish scenarios that allow for large emissions increases in national inventories with potentially little consequence.
Another question is whether or not they will require Annex I countries to account for both wetlands drainage and rewetting. There's been discussion around allowing countries to only report wetlands draining but not include it in national inventories - meaning that they may have incentive to restore wetlands, but not to avoid draining them in the first place if they opt to not account for these emissions.
Wetlands and managed forest sectors account for around 1 billion tCO2e annually.