Posted by Anthony Lewis on 11/11/09
Last updated 11/12/09

By Anthony Lewis
11/11/2009

Copenhagen Treaty Summary
pages 5-22

The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international treaty introduced in 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development - better known as the Earth Summit.  The objective of this treaty is to obtain international cooperation in combating what some believe to be anthropogenic (man-made) climate change through the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  It is a major tool in the implementation of Agenda 21⁽¹⁾ - the United Nations' long range plan for "sustainable development."  This original treaty was signed by President George H.W. Bush on October 13, 1992.

The Earth Summit agreement did not require commitments by or place limits on the participants and it did not include an enforcement mechanism. It provided for future protocols, e.g. the Kyoto Protocol, which would put legally binding agreements in place with specific GHG emissions limits. The purpose of the Copenhagen Summit is to create a legally binding document to build on the Kyoto Protocol.⁽²⁾  It also furthers the goals of Agenda 21.  The final language of this Copenhagen protocol is yet to be decided.

The Copenhagen Protocol calls on sovereign nations to give taxing authority to the U.N. (a supranational organization comprised of unelected bureaucrats) through the payment of financial reparations for the assumed historical climate debts of developed nations.  Developed nations would also agree to finance the efforts of developing nations to cope with the effects of presumed anthropogenic climate change.  In addition, U.N. Agencies will be the sole authorities determining what actions a nation may take to mitigate man-made climate change thus sanctioning them to set policy on federal, state, and local levels.

This summary provides a brief description of pages 5-22 followed by the actual text which best represents the overall objectives expressed in these pages.   It continues with comments on a few critical excerpts and concludes with some personal thoughts.

Pages 5-22 mainly consist of the section entitled "A shared vision for long-term cooperative action."   It basically lays out efforts that should be taken by Council of Parties (COP) to deal with the challenges of man-made climate change.  It proposes taking four avenues to achieve short and long term goals: mitigation, adaptation, finance, and technology.   The overriding aims of the convention are to achieve a reduction in global emissions such that human activity will not interfere with the world's climate, adapt to current and future impacts of man-made climate change, to bring about sustainable development and to eradicate poverty.   The eradication of poverty objective is the result of the combining of the UNFCCC and the Millennium Development Goals.⁽³⁾

This section is very redundant and vague.  The paragraphs which provide a good summary of the overall intent of the shared vision are 29-33 and 36-38.

Paragraphs 29-33 call on developed/Annex I nations to allocute to their historical responsibility for anthropogenic climate change. Developed nations will also agree to fund the adaptation and mitigation efforts of developing nations through deep cuts in their own GHG emissions and the transfer of wealth (money and technology) to the developing nations.

Paragraphs 36-38 describe the legal framework which will be used to enforce this agreement and verify compliance to it.  This framework will consist of three "pillars" - a government, a facilitative mechanism and a financial mechanism.

All emphasis to the actual text were added.

Here are some brief comments on a few of the areas with added emphasis.

1. assigned amount - These can, at best, be arbitrary numbers.   The Convention claims that human influence on the climate dates back to 1750.  Certainly a mathematical formula can be created and run through a computer, but would this computer generated analysis be accurate?

2. equitable allocation of global atmospheric resources - This allows for the Convention and its subsequent bureaucracies to determine how a nation uses the natural resources within its own borders.

3. current per-capita emissions - This refers directly to individual use of energy.  This could give the Convention, its agencies and international bodies the authority to determine the how, what, when, etc. energy use of every person.   They could decide what type of fuel a farmer uses to work his land to how much energy an individual can use to heat and cool her home.

4. achieve the right to development - This is a basic premise of this framework convention. "Developing nations" have the "right" to development as long as that development is sustainable and done within the principles set forth by this treaty.  This will undoubtedly put severe constraints on the economic growth of these nations.

Here are some comments on the added emphasis.

1. carrying out of public policies - This will allow a foreign entity to set public policy for sovereign nations.

2. market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate - This makes the objectives of the United Nations superior to every other issue facing the participating nations.

3. education, awareness raising and public participation, focused on youth, women and indigenous peoples - This education will be based on the wishes of the climate control agency in charge of it.  It will promote the position of man-made climate change, that it is the fault of developed nations and the developing nations are dependent on them for their growth.  It may become part of public school curriculum.  It will not provide the opportunity to learn about opposing views and, therefore, verges on indoctrination.

4. the purchase or flexibility of patents - This gives U.N. agencies or whatever supranational body it forms control over intellectual property.

5. government will be ruled by the COP - The use of the term "government" is key.  It puts in place a body which will actually govern the affairs of all participating nations.

6. multilateral climate change fund - Since this will be funded by developed nations, the tax dollars of their citizens will be used outside of their home country and be under the control of a foreign body of unelected bureaucrats.

Here are a few other paragraphs which are critical in understanding the tone being set by the UNFCCC with some additional comments.

• To say that man-made global warming is "unequivocal" is not true. At least 31,000 American scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition Project. Here's a quote from that petition.  " There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.  Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

• Is it proper for policy making of local governments to be determined by the United Nations?

• This is wealth transfer and gives the U.N and its agencies claim on physical property of the citizens of all participating nations.

• Nothing, not economic depression, massive job loss or severe decline in the value of currency will stand in the way of participating nations transferring a portion of their gross domestic product to U.N. Agencies.

Conclusion

Why so much effort to combat an unproven hypothesis - anthropogenic climate change?

This entire scheme is clearly about wealth transfer from developed nations to "developing" nations. U.N. bureaucrats have cooked up a plan which attempts to legitimize their claim on the physical and intellectual property of individuals and sovereign nations. They are seeking to insert themselves into the policy making of cities and the day to day decisions of how people provide for their families. It is a shame that they've turned technological advancement into a sin. This is an obvious move to rob all nations, developed and developing, of their wealth and sovereignty. It is deplorable.

That is reason enough to abandon this treaty, but there is something else that is just as insidious. Despite all their talk about concerns for impoverished nations, there is no real desire to move these nations out of poverty. Developing nations will be forced to operate within this treaty with total disregard for what individual nations believe is best for themselves. If the goal is less industrialization world wide, are U.N. agencies going to support a steel industry in Cambodia? Would they support an automobile industry in Mauritania or mineral mines in Burkina Faso or oil refineries in Liberia or even a bio fuel industry in Haiti or water treatment facilities in Cameroon?  Supranational organizations will control the resources of these countries. This is no less than sophisticated colonization.

Many people may be "good intentioned" and even agree with the premise of the Convention, that a debt is owed. Would they also agree with their money being seized by a supranational organization?  An organization which will tie a significant portion of it up in bureaucratic red tape and pass the remainder over to proven corrupt governments that will only use it to continue to oppress their citizens? "Western benevolence" has doomed so many developing nations to being welfare states tormented with corruption, poverty, disease and death?  How much longer will "good intentioned" people support this exploitation?

Undeveloped nations will be denied vital industries which would provide food, housing, employment, education, clean water, hot and cold water, hospitals and adequate medical care.  In fact, this is happening now.  Environmental groups world wide are working to block essential industrial growth in impoverished nations. This is condemnable.  The real goal appears to be lowering the living standard of developed nations to a level barely tolerable for their citizens and to maintain the status quo of poverty and pestilence in undeveloped nations.

The United States recognizes the right to self government -- the corrupt governments in developing nations do not.  The writers of this treaty are aware of this and seemingly have no issue with making agreements with corrupt leaders and continuing the impoverished lives of those citizens. All so they can get control of the wealth of developed nations.  If they really cared about these nations - they would recognize their right to self government.

This scheme is anathema to every principle on which the United States is based and this treaty violates its Constitution.  It incorporates taxation without representation and surrenders sovereignty to the United Nations.  The United States should not only refuse to sign this treaty - it should refuse to send a representative to Copenhagen and end its participation in this scheme.  To continue participation and, even worse, agree to this treaty would be a greater sin than any hypothetical human influence on climate change.

______________________

1 http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml
2 http://unfccc.int/2860.php
3 http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

Posted by Anthony Lewis on 12/09/09
Last updated 12/09/09

By Beverly Manning
12/08/2009

The Treaty of Copenhagen is basically an International cap and trade scheme, a multilateral Fund for Climate Change or Green Fund, designed to redistribute wealth globally from rich and developed countries to poor, underdeveloped countries supervised by the UN, punishing developed countries for carbon emissions and encouraging developing countries to sign the treaty which uses market based mechanisms under Kyoto Protocol.

Keep in mind this is a provisional, proposed draft, a negotiating text, and can be amended, changed behind closed doors. Enhanced Action on the Provision of Financial Resources and Investments, pages 130 - 146, covers financial arrangements and the purposes and manner in which funds will be dispersed for both the public and private sector financing through the carbon market. Historical climate debt, polluter pays principle, will be assessed. International levy on airfares and global levy on International financial markets are included. This includes a compliance mechanism which will be established to define non-compliance parameters, penalties, fines, and collection of these fines and penalties. The COP (Conference of Parties), and The Executive Board together with the secretariat of the Executive Board, is the operating entity of the Financial Mechanism. The Convention, UN, NGO'S, decide everything. Cedes All National Sovereignty and gives international bureaucrats control.

The basic architecture of the Financial and Technology Mechanism will comprise two pillars: one on adaptation and the other one on mitigation, transfer, and diffusion of clean technologies.

I strongly OPPOSE The Treaty of Copenhagen as it cedes US Sovereignty to the UN and advances Global governance. All American Citizens who cherish US Sovereignty should hound their Congressional Representatives, using every means at their disposal, to oppose ratifying this Treaty.

Posted by Anthony Lewis on 12/09/09
Last updated 12/09/09

By Ike Hall
12/08/2009

119: This paragraph says that developing country parties shall (or should; they haven't decided yet) develop robust national monitoring systems for emission reductions and removals and carbon stock changes, taking into consideration the indigenous ancient knowledge and local communities.

It is this putting of the cart before the horse that should be a reason developing country parties should not ratify this treaty. In order to develop their economies, and thus improving the standard of living for their people, they need principally to concentrate on resource utilization through capital investment.

This paragraph also mentions the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA)¹. SBSTA was formed by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBT)² to "provide the COP with advice on scientific, technological and methodological matters. Two key areas of work in this regard are promoting the development and transfer of environmentally-friendly technologies, and conducting technical work to improve the guidelines for preparing national communications and emission inventories."

For environmentally-friendly technologies to succeed, they must be developed without subsidies and must compete with freely-available alternatives, or they are not economically advantageous. Attempting to meet the carbon-emission targets without technological improvements would necessitate a fall in the standard of living, for which the populations of developed countries will not stand. Thus the treaty is inviting cheating in the emission reporting by all parties. The second part of SBSTA's assigned mission would be a point of control of private industry.

120-121: This section discusses the measurement and monitoring of REDD-plus actions. REDD is an acronym for "reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation." REDD-plus, as defined in the Bali Action Plan³, calls for:

"Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries".⁴

Interestingly, environmentalists state that there are many problems with REDD-plus from their perspective, including but not limited to:

• Failure to recognize Indigenous Peoples' rights in the UNFCCC.

• Failure to consult with Indigenous Peoples and local communities (for example in the FCPF).

• The UN definition of forests fails to differentiate between plantations and forests, meaning that companies could replace forests with monoculture tree plantations and still qualify for subsidies under REDD.

• "Technical" issues: Baselines, measurements, additionality, leakage, permanence.

• There is a serious risk of increasing corruption: in the South, where large sums of money could pour into some of the most corrupt regimes on the planet as well as in the North, where a new sub-prime market in forest carbon could be created.⁵

Their objections spring from a concern that REDD-plus does not actually do enough to curb carbon emissions by developed nations, assuming that carbon emissions have a negative impact. This has yet to be established. However, the above points are reasonable objections. In addition, the establishment of technocratic committees to oversee the verification process further removes the decision making from the property owners and local governments.

122-124: These paragraphs outline the steps for parties supporting the implementation of REDD-plus to document the steps they took to do so, either "through fund or market options". Clearly, carbon-trading markets are encouraged if not mandated.

125-128: These paragraphs provide details on how developing country parties get paid for complying with the Convention. The goals for developing countries are outlined as follows (emphasis added):

(a)  Contributing to the ultimate objective of the Convention by reducing their emissions by
sources and increasing removals by sinks in the forestry sector, and other selected land-use and land-use change sectors;

(b)Initiating efforts to embark on economy-wide low carbon development pathway, through economy-wide low carbon development plans;

(c)  Meeting their commitments under the Convention and related legal instruments;

(d)  Developing capacity and a reliable national framework for measurement, reporting and verification of emission reductions and removals from forestry sector and other selected land-use and land-use change sectors;

(e)  Achieving sustainable development; and

(d)  Conserving biological diversity.

In other words, developing country parties are expected to hamper the growth of their industries and prevent development of land and other resources in the name of biological diversity and reducing carbon emissions. One might reasonably ask, "What's the payoff for doing this?" The payoffs are discussed in the following section, but this reviewer does not believe the costs in lost development are worthwhile.

Annex III D: Enhanced action on mitigation

This section introduces the "cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions" or CSAs.

It covers the development and transfer to developing countries in specific sectors of "technologies, practices and processes that control, reduce or prevent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases" and includes "those technologies that are publicly owned or in the public domain, as well as those held by the private sector", and how such transfer is to be paid for, and the obligations of both developed and developing country parties under CSAs.

It remains to be seen whether the Convention recognizes patents or other intellectual properties in these technologies. Sectoral approaches do not relieve the compliance burden on developed country parties: "For developed country Parties, sectoral efforts may contribute to, but cannot replace, legally binding absolute emission reduction targets (QELRCs) and mitigation commitments for all Annex I Parties."

One unintentionally funny statement was this: "Sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions should be cooperative and not imposed by one Party or some Parties on other Parties." It would go without saying in a just world.

Annex III E: Enhanced action on mitigation: Economic and social consequences of response measures

This section starts with an acknowledgement that some nations, especially developing nations and the petroleum-producing and petroleum-using states, will have special social and economic impacts. It also acknowledges that many impacts will be unintended and unforeseen, and that "[m]echanisms should be developed to allow for mitigating the impact of the response measures on productive workforces, promoting a gradual and just transition in the most affected economic sectors and contributing to building new capacities for both production- and service-related jobs."

It goes on to describe the way countries should communicate the impacts of the Convention. It also proposes yet another permanent forum as a venue for "Parties to share information, experiences and views on the economic, social and environmental consequences of response measures, so as to enhance the efforts of Parties to analyse and understand these consequences and to identify innovative policy responses and technologies to address adverse consequences." Such a forum used to be called "scientific literature".

The forum also invites participation by the same climate scientists whose work has been repeatedly debunked (emphasis added):

"This permanent forum shall be open to participation by all Parties and intergovernmental organizations, and mobilize expertise from the scientific and modelling communities and the private sector."

There is an easy way for developed and developing countries to minimize the impact of the Convention: don't sign or ratify it. If a nation wishes to restrict its own carbon emissions, it is free to do so, assuming that there is such a phenomenon as anthropogenic global warming and that its impact is negative.

Annex IV: Enhanced action on the provision of financial resources and investment

Financial considerations are addressed in this section. The document decries the fact that already "financial commitments have not been met by developed country Parties" and goes on to "emphasiz[e] the urgent need for these Parties to honour their commitments."

Surely, the priorities of the developed countries have changed following the advent of the international economic crisis. But not to worry, the Convention proposes a mechanism for the provision of "new and additional, adequate and predictable financial resources":

"Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources and transfer technology to developing country Parties to make full and effective repayment of climate debt, including adaptation debt, taking

responsibility for their historical cumulative emissions and current high per capita emissions."

The Catholic Church used to call this "dispensation". And what of the recipients of this largesse?

"Developing country Parties will, in pursuing economic development and poverty eradication, take proactive measures to adapt to and mitigate climate change". The central paradox of economic development while simultaneously mitigating climate change, or at least carbon emissions, could not be stated more bluntly. How, exactly, are developing country Parties supposed to pull this off? Even developed nations are struggling with this. Merely providing the technology to developing country Parties will not satisfy the needs of capital investment and property rights, upon which most of these advances in technology depend.

How are funds to be collected and distributed, and by whom?

"The financial mechanism shall operate and function under the authority, governance and guidance of, and be fully accountable to, the COP, which shall decide on its policies, programme priorities and eligibility criteria, and allocation of resources for adaptation, mitigation, technology and capacity-building and any other function that may be determined by the COP[.]"

This statement alone should cause many countries, developed and developing alike, to collectively shudder, and will hopefully make them reconsider their commitment to the Convention. For this encapsulates the creation of an unaccountable, supernational body that alone decides which developing country Parties are deserving of assistance, and in what form.

This section goes on to identify the characteristics of those particularly vulnerable developing country Parties that might qualify to be first in line: Poor developing countries; least developed countries (LDCs); small island developing states (SIDS); countries in Africa affected by drought, desertification and floods; countries with low-lying coastal, arid and semi-arid areas or areas liable to floods, drought and desertification; archipelagic countries; developing countries with fragile mountainous ecosystems; countries with unique biodiversity, tropical glaciers and fragile ecosystems; particularly vulnerable populations, groups and communities, especially the poor, women, children, the elderly, indigenous peoples, minorities and those suffering from disability.

In other words, the usual intended recipients of international aid. History is replete with examples of how such transfers of wealth have operated poorly and counterproductively in the past.

1http://www.cbd.int/sbstta/

2http://www.cbd.int/

3http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_13/application/pdf/cp_bali_action.pdf

4http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf

5http://www.redd-monitor.org/redd-an-introduction/

119: This paragraph says that developing country parties shall (or should; they haven't decided yet) develop robust national monitoring systems for emission reductions and removals and carbon stock changes, taking into consideration the indigenous ancient knowledge and local communities.

It is this putting of the cart before the horse that should be a reason developing country parties should not ratify this treaty. In order to develop their economies, and thus improving the standard of living for their people, they need principally to concentrate on resource utilization through capital investment.

This paragraph also mentions the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA)¹. SBSTA was formed by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBT)² to "provide the COP with advice on scientific, technological and methodological matters. Two key areas of work in this regard are promoting the development and transfer of environmentally-friendly technologies, and conducting technical work to improve the guidelines for preparing national communications and emission inventories."

For environmentally-friendly technologies to succeed, they must be developed without subsidies and must compete with freely-available alternatives, or they are not economically advantageous. Attempting to meet the carbon-emission targets without technological improvements would necessitate a fall in the standard of living, for which the populations of developed countries will not stand. Thus the treaty is inviting cheating in the emission reporting by all parties. The second part of SBSTA's assigned mission would be a point of control of private industry.

120-121: This section discusses the measurement and monitoring of REDD-plus actions. REDD is an acronym for "reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation." REDD-plus, as defined in the Bali Action Plan³, calls for:

"Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries".⁴

Interestingly, environmentalists state that there are many problems with REDD-plus from their perspective, including but not limited to:

• Failure to recognize Indigenous Peoples' rights in the UNFCCC.

• Failure to consult with Indigenous Peoples and local communities (for example in the FCPF).

• The UN definition of forests fails to differentiate between plantations and forests, meaning that companies could replace forests with monoculture tree plantations and still qualify for subsidies under REDD.

• "Technical" issues: Baselines, measurements, additionality, leakage, permanence.

• There is a serious risk of increasing corruption: in the South, where large sums of money could pour into some of the most corrupt regimes on the planet as well as in the North, where a new sub-prime market in forest carbon could be created.⁵

Their objections spring from a concern that REDD-plus does not actually do enough to curb carbon emissions by developed nations, assuming that carbon emissions have a negative impact. This has yet to be established. However, the above points are reasonable objections. In addition, the establishment of technocratic committees to oversee the verification process further removes the decision making from the property owners and local governments.

122-124: These paragraphs outline the steps for parties supporting the implementation of REDD-plus to document the steps they took to do so, either "through fund or market options". Clearly, carbon-trading markets are encouraged if not mandated.

125-128: These paragraphs provide details on how developing country parties get paid for complying with the Convention. The goals for developing countries are outlined as follows (emphasis added):

(a)  Contributing to the ultimate objective of the Convention by reducing their emissions by
sources and increasing removals by sinks in the forestry sector, and other selected land-use and land-use change sectors;

(b)Initiating efforts to embark on economy-wide low carbon development pathway, through economy-wide low carbon development plans;

(c)  Meeting their commitments under the Convention and related legal instruments;

(d)  Developing capacity and a reliable national framework for measurement, reporting and verification of emission reductions and removals from forestry sector and other selected land-use and land-use change sectors;

(e)  Achieving sustainable development; and

(d)  Conserving biological diversity.

In other words, developing country parties are expected to hamper the growth of their industries and prevent development of land and other resources in the name of biological diversity and reducing carbon emissions. One might reasonably ask, "What's the payoff for doing this?" The payoffs are discussed in the following section, but this reviewer does not believe the costs in lost development are worthwhile.

Annex III D: Enhanced action on mitigation

This section introduces the "cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions" or CSAs.

It covers the development and transfer to developing countries in specific sectors of "technologies, practices and processes that control, reduce or prevent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases" and includes "those technologies that are publicly owned or in the public domain, as well as those held by the private sector", and how such transfer is to be paid for, and the obligations of both developed and developing country parties under CSAs.

It remains to be seen whether the Convention recognizes patents or other intellectual properties in these technologies. Sectoral approaches do not relieve the compliance burden on developed country parties: "For developed country Parties, sectoral efforts may contribute to, but cannot replace, legally binding absolute emission reduction targets (QELRCs) and mitigation commitments for all Annex I Parties."

One unintentionally funny statement was this: "Sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions should be cooperative and not imposed by one Party or some Parties on other Parties." It would go without saying in a just world.

Annex III E: Enhanced action on mitigation: Economic and social consequences of response measures

This section starts with an acknowledgement that some nations, especially developing nations and the petroleum-producing and petroleum-using states, will have special social and economic impacts. It also acknowledges that many impacts will be unintended and unforeseen, and that "[m]echanisms should be developed to allow for mitigating the impact of the response measures on productive workforces, promoting a gradual and just transition in the most affected economic sectors and contributing to building new capacities for both production- and service-related jobs."

It goes on to describe the way countries should communicate the impacts of the Convention. It also proposes yet another permanent forum as a venue for "Parties to share information, experiences and views on the economic, social and environmental consequences of response measures, so as to enhance the efforts of Parties to analyse and understand these consequences and to identify innovative policy responses and technologies to address adverse consequences." Such a forum used to be called "scientific literature".

The forum also invites participation by the same climate scientists whose work has been repeatedly debunked (emphasis added):

"This permanent forum shall be open to participation by all Parties and intergovernmental organizations, and mobilize expertise from the scientific and modelling communities and the private sector."

There is an easy way for developed and developing countries to minimize the impact of the Convention: don't sign or ratify it. If a nation wishes to restrict its own carbon emissions, it is free to do so, assuming that there is such a phenomenon as anthropogenic global warming and that its impact is negative.

Annex IV: Enhanced action on the provision of financial resources and investment

Financial considerations are addressed in this section. The document decries the fact that already "financial commitments have not been met by developed country Parties" and goes on to "emphasiz[e] the urgent need for these Parties to honour their commitments."

Surely, the priorities of the developed countries have changed following the advent of the international economic crisis. But not to worry, the Convention proposes a mechanism for the provision of "new and additional, adequate and predictable financial resources":

"Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources and transfer technology to developing country Parties to make full and effective repayment of climate debt, including adaptation debt, taking

responsibility for their historical cumulative emissions and current high per capita emissions."

The Catholic Church used to call this "dispensation". And what of the recipients of this largesse?

"Developing country Parties will, in pursuing economic development and poverty eradication, take proactive measures to adapt to and mitigate climate change". The central paradox of economic development while simultaneously mitigating climate change, or at least carbon emissions, could not be stated more bluntly. How, exactly, are developing country Parties supposed to pull this off? Even developed nations are struggling with this. Merely providing the technology to developing country Parties will not satisfy the needs of capital investment and property rights, upon which most of these advances in technology depend.

How are funds to be collected and distributed, and by whom?

"The financial mechanism shall operate and function under the authority, governance and guidance of, and be fully accountable to, the COP, which shall decide on its policies, programme priorities and eligibility criteria, and allocation of resources for adaptation, mitigation, technology and capacity-building and any other function that may be determined by the COP[.]"

This statement alone should cause many countries, developed and developing alike, to collectively shudder, and will hopefully make them reconsider their commitment to the Convention. For this encapsulates the creation of an unaccountable, supernational body that alone decides which developing country Parties are deserving of assistance, and in what form.

This section goes on to identify the characteristics of those particularly vulnerable developing country Parties that might qualify to be first in line: Poor developing countries; least developed countries (LDCs); small island developing states (SIDS); countries in Africa affected by drought, desertification and floods; countries with low-lying coastal, arid and semi-arid areas or areas liable to floods, drought and desertification; archipelagic countries; developing countries with fragile mountainous ecosystems; countries with unique biodiversity, tropical glaciers and fragile ecosystems; particularly vulnerable populations, groups and communities, especially the poor, women, children, the elderly, indigenous peoples, minorities and those suffering from disability.

In other words, the usual intended recipients of international aid. History is replete with examples of how such transfers of wealth have operated poorly and counterproductively in the past.

1  http://www.cbd.int/sbstta/

2   http://www.cbd.int/

3  http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_13/application/pdf/cp_bali_action.pdf

4  http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf

5  http://www.redd-monitor.org/redd-an-introduction/

Posted by Anthony Lewis on 12/08/09
Last updated 12/09/09

By Jennifer Larson
12/08/2009

This portion is very difficult to read and understand, and I tried very hard to stay with what was said and not include much commentary. I did underline some parts cause they really caught my eye. It's very erratic.  The Conference of the Party, COP, makes all the decisions and reserves the right to change their minds depending on advise from people they choose.  This, in my opinion, just ridiculous.

Page 95 continues a discussion on NAMA (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions) and the policies and incentives relating to forestry.

This section addresses the question [How does the mechanism function?] I gather this question asks how the policies and incentives of the "International Register" of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA) will work.

126. Covers matching support, with provisions for financing and technology support - developing country parties will identify their needs and financial and technology transfer will be based on the needs identified.
128. The secretariat will maintain a register of NAMA's (these are determined by developing country parties) which will contain a list of:

a. proposed mitigation, or proposed action.
b. info related to the assumptions and underpinning of the proposed actions
c. emissions that will be avoided.
d. the sustainable development benefits - identified by the developing country.
e. the support required.

This information is assessed by a technical panel composed of representatives mainly from developing countries. When the tech panel reports that all is in line with the agreed approach, additional financial support will be given as an incentive to continue such good practice (this is automatic).

129. The register is updated annually, and on measured outcomes every two years.
130. The operation of the International Registry is developed by the Conference of the Parties serving as the assembly of the Parties (the COP).
132. At the first session they will elaborate further, and the governance of the mechanism including the technical bodies will also be decided later.
134. Once the tech panel approves the NAMA's financial and technology transfer becomes automatic.
135. The implementation of the NAMA's is facilitated by:

a. Direct financial and technological support from developed countries.
b. Provisions for emission reduction credits.

137 - 138. Developing countries can choose one or both of these ways to implement NAMA's and they can delay if they feel the level of support is not high enough.
139 - 140. There will be another mechanism to register and review implementation of the support. This will be established at the UNFCC by the COP. They will set up a technical panel to assess the assumptions and support. Another group will be established to manage the measurement, reporting, verification, technology and finance. Other tech panels will assess the NAMA's and verify NAMA's, technology and finance.

More about Measurement, reporting, and verification [what should be measured, reported and verified?]

141 - 144. States that Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions, and their support should be measurable, reportable, and verifiable.
145 - 147. Only supported NAMA's are measured, reported, and verified.
148. The guidelines for such measurement, reporting, and verification are set by the Conference of the Parties.
149. The extent of the measurement and reporting of NAMA's and the achieved outcome applies to (these choices, or perhaps all) only mitigation action supported by technology, to include low-emission strategies and Green House Gas emission limitations and reduction.
150. Each developing country will inventory its anthropogenic GHG emissions by each source, and removals by sinks of all gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol.
151. Each developing country will submit supplemental information for the NAMA's, using a specific template which should contain:

a. How the implementation of the NAMA's affect the Green House Gas reduction plan.
b. The low-emission strategy in the context of the GHG strategy.
c. For MAJOR developing countries the supplemental will include quantification of action and energy targets, based on the same requirements of developed countries.

152 - 154 (pick one) mitigation actions done with a developing country's own resources, could be, should be, or may be, reported.

[What and how to measure and report NAMA's by developing countries]

155. Developing countries will report and monitor the achieved outcome of ....mitigation actions according to the guidelines decided at the Meeting of the Parties at the first session.
156. Countries with Greenhouse emission targets will have a national system put in place to monitor the estimation of "man-made" sources.
157 - 158. There is a chart to be used. It includes a section that guesses what gases etc. will be emitted in a "Business As Usual" scenario.
159-160.  Measurement and Reporting are to be done under the guidance of the Conference of the Parties. The Multilateral Fund on Climate Change (financial support) will finance these mitigation actions and will also answer to the COP ( Conference of the Parties).

[When to submit national GHG inventoried]

161-165. There are several paragraph choices, but in general developing countries will submit either yearly or bi-yearly, an inventory of man-made emissions of Greenhouse Gases. There is a provision that financial support from developed counties will be provided. Some small island developing States can be exempt from this reporting process.

[Who will, and how to, verify Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action's of developing countries]

166 - 172. They will be reviewed by expert review teams under the authority of the COP (Conference of the Parties). They will use guidelines decided by the Meeting of the Parties at the first session.
173. Each country will do it's own measurement and reporting - following the guidelines - but the desired outcomes will be verified jointly by the Financing Mechanism.

[How to Measure, report, and verify support provided for the NAMA for developing counties]

174. An International Institutional framework shall be established to measure, report and verify NAMA's.
175 - 179. Developed county Parties will measure, report and have verified the support that is provided to developing countries themselves. Support and transfer of technology will be in units of an agreed upon currency. Measurement and reporting shall be based on new methodologies.
180 - 185. All to be verified by either Annex-I country Parties, or a Verification Group in the Finance Mechanism. Developed countries report on their support yearly.

[Cluster G: National Schedules]

186. The minimum expectations developing countries register would depend on national circumstances.
187. Each developing country will establish a Schedule for implementing the actions (to reduce GHG emissions). Schedules will include information on the support received for them.  A description on intended actions, and how they will benefit from additional support. Schedules are subject to regular review by the COP.

[Cluster H: New Sub-section for Measurement, Reporting and Verification]

This is a proposed new Sub- section - and discusses methods for estimating man-made emissions.

188 - 189. Each Party in Annex-I, within a year, will have a national system for the estimation of man-made emissions (not already controlled by the Montreal Protocol. Guidelines for this system will be decided upon by the Conference of the Parties (COP).
190. The methods for estimating will be those accepted by the IPCC of the COP at the 3rd session. If these methods are not used, then appropriate adjustments will be applied to concur with the methods agreed upon by the COP. The COP will use information and advice provided by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice to review methods and decide if they are appropriate.

191. The way man-made carbon dioxide emissions are calculated, will be decided by the IPCC and the COP. The COP will regularly review and revise the global warming potential of each greenhouse gas. They can apply revisions.

Inventory and information

192. Each party in Annex-I (developed countries) will do an annual inventory of man-made emissions by source and removals by sinks of GHG's, following the rules of the COP. Supplemental information will be included.
193 - 199. Each party will submit the information annually and the frequency will be determined by the COP. The COP will decide the guidelines for the preparation of information and also decide the modalities for the measurement of intensity targets.

Review of Information

200 - 204. The Annex I Parties (developed countries) will have the information they submit checked (reviewed) by expert review teams which are selected from a group of experts that are nominated by the COP. Other groups may nominate experts, but they must be in accordance with the guidelines set by the COP.

The expert review teams will submit their review to the secretariat, and the secretariat will circulate the report and any questions that come up, to the COP.

205 - 209. The COP will make decisions on any matter required for the implementation of this Protocol (this treaty). They will take "appropriate" action, which may include the adoption of additional amendments. The COP will also consider criteria for the changes of circumstances of the Parties (since these actions are considered "nationally appropriate").

Proposed new subsection on compliance

210. The COP will approve appropriate and effective procedures to determine and address cases of Non-compliance. They will adopt any procedures entailing consequences by means of an amendment.

ANNEX III C - Enhanced action on mitigation

This section discusses issues relating to deforestation in developing countries, the role of conservation, and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks, and is really about LAND USE.

There are a lot of moving of paragraphs proposed and consolidation of text, which came from an informal exchange among Parties.

REDD stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries. I'm not exactly sure what REDD-plus is meant to reference. It is stated along the way that within the NAMA's of developing countries a framework for voluntary actions to reduce anthropogenic

emissions by sources and increase removals by sinks in the forestry sector is referred to as the REDD-plus mechanism the following sections attempt to define what it is supposed to achieve.


Objective and Scope

106. The objective of this section is to enhance mitigation actions through land use - either reducing deforestation or increasing conservation and re-forestation. REDD-plus mechanisms and policies will be implemented in successive and intensifying phases, evolving into a results-based compensation mechanism for emission reductions.

Principles

107. REDD- plus actions and strategies are supposed to be voluntary, nationally appropriate, and subjected to adequate financial and technological support. They are not supposed to help developed countries fulfill their own commitment to emission reduction, but they are to help developing countries reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development.
108. To enhance participation, social and environmental benefits should be promoted in the host countries and the REDD-plus actions should compliment forest programs already in place. 109. The COP will consult indigenous peoples and local communities and will develop guidelines to ensure that their rights are not adversely effected.110 - 112. Developing countries will develop plans and create a national authority for implementing the REDD-plus actions. The national authority will submit reference levels and report to the COP.

112.1 - Addition

Developing countries should have domestic governance structures in place to be sure that what they do now will not increase emissions at a later time and have consultants to protect indigenous people.

Developed countries will have policies to ensure that they only import things from a developing country that does not contribute to emissions relating to deforestation.

All Parties will follow guidelines set by the IPCC and the COP NAMA's for reducing forest emissions are not eligible for "emissions trading."

Several alternatives to the 112 Addition are suggested:

Alternative 1 Adds urgency and says the REDD-plus actions enhance sustainable development goals and met the commitment they made at this Convention through land use inventories, monitoring frameworks, sustainable land management, and conserving biological diversity.

Alternative 2 adds that REDD-plus actions are to assist developing countries meet the objective agreed to at the Convention. It requires that REDD-plus actions are certified by operational entities yet to be designated.

Alternative 3 adds that the REDD-plus actions are implemented through the forest carbon mechanism and address permanence - it requires forest emission levels to be set which are agreed upon by the COP, based on expert advise.

Means of implementation

113. Recognizes the need for financial support for all of this and offers several options:

1 - Establish a new fund from contributions from developed country Parties, and other sources, including auctioning national emissions trading allowances at an international level, collecting fines or penalties for non-compliance of developed countries.
2 - Using the financial mechanism established under the Convention and creating a special fund.
3 - Existing funds.

Measurement, reporting and verification of actions (the options get more complicated).

115-116

Option 1 - Developing countries register their national forest emission levels and report.

Option 2 - Developing countries requesting support report under the NAMA registry - including type of support, nature of action and info on measurement and verification.

Option 3 - The COP develops appropriate means for measuring and reporting. This is supposed to help the developing countries come up with methods for reporting, verifying etc.

Option 4 - Developing countries requesting support submit their plans to the COP or future REDD-plus coordinator.

117. As each country develops their National reference emission levels they shall follow the guidelines of the COP.
117.1 - 117.2. A global reference level will be established to monitor future emissions, land use and land use changes in developing countries in order to avoid carbon leakage and ensure environmental integrity. The global reference level will compare to a "business as usual" scenario.
118. Parties aiming to implement REDD-plus actions supported by funding, shall report, report, report. They can report actions to reduce GHG emissions as early as 2005 (and for a period not determined) for consideration of credit for early action.

A "correction factor" to the information reported can be applied to take into account "national circumstances."

Page 112 ends.