What should the AWGLCA not achieve in order to move us significantly towards “a full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention”? A few initial ideas are suggested below:

Our shared vision should be centered on the Convention. Our efforts should be on specifying how to fully implement it and not on straying from its provisions.

The focus should be on ensuring that Annex I Parties take the lead in modifying longer-term emissions trends. Once that has been accomplished, (perhaps in a few decades), one could begin considering what developing countries are to do. This could require:

• Ambitious emission reductions targets for Annex I Parties in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol; (e.g. minus 30-50% by 2020, minus 45-65 % by 2030)


• Equivalent (“ensuring comparability of”) emission reduction efforts by the United States;


• Elimination of “hot air”, through a change of base year for economies in transition from 1990 to 2000, through tight targets for them in the second commitment period, or through an undertaking by Annex II Parties not to acquire "hot air" permits (like the provision on nuclear CERs in the Marrakesh accords).


• Further broadening of the CDM to accomodate large programmes.


• This would stimulate CDM investment in developing countries, which has so far been unilateral to a significant extent (ca. 50% according to the secretariat report on investment and financial flows).


• non-Annex I Parties will continue to advance, (as they have done so far with some success, except that financial support under Art.4.3 has been lacking), the implementation of their commitments under Art.4.1 of the Convention;

The focus should be on identifying adaptation needs and enhancing the capabilities of developing countries to implement these actions, which will require transfers of funds and know-how.The notion of liability, as mentioned in the UNDP Human Development Report, is useful in this regard.

The identification of adaptation needs will require combining a geographic approach with a sectoral one (e.g.agriculture, forestry and fisheries, water supply, human health, natural ecosystems, coastal zones, infrastructure).Adaptation actions are seldom only related to climate-change but the climate change risk increases their utility or the magnitude needed. They should be integrated with poverty reduction efforts whenever feasible. Some adaptation efforts can be promoted at international level (e.g. disease control, vaccine development, development of drought-resistant seeds, etc.).Others are of a local character.

The focus should be on enhancing both the push and the pull for the development of low-emissions technologies and for accelerating their widespread dissemination. This could involve:

• Strengthening existing mechanisms for information exchange;


• Identifying and addressing institutional barriers to technology transfer;


• Promoting the elimination of energy subsidies that discourage the introduction of relevant new technologies while addressing social impacts;


• Funding the R&D of selected technologies (among criteria: relevance and maturity) such as CCS, wind energy, solar thermal and photovoltaic, modern biomass-based fuels, while ensuring participation of developing countries in such R&D ;

The focus should be a significant increase of funding flows.The secretariat report on investment and financial flows provides a conservative indication of the orders of magnitude needed. This could involve:

• Ambitious reduction targets for Annex I Parties in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol , equivalent efforts by the United States, participation of the United States in the CDM (they invented it together with Brazil), elimination of hot air and definition of a long second commitment period (2012-2030?), so as to ensure a durable surge in CDM activities and investments;


• Resuming GEF replenishments every 3 (not 4) years and a commitment to double its resources at each of next 3 or 4 replenishments, so as to gradually align its resources with estimated needs (some US$ 10 bn. annually according to the secretariat report on the determination of the amount of funding necessary and available during the next replenishment period of the GEF , quoting the World Bank) ;

• Collecting and compiling information on any financial flows from Annex II Parties to implement Art. 4.4 of the Convention;


• Estimating financial needs for implementing Art. 4.4;


• Getting rid of the absurd tax on sustainable development activities in developing countries under the CDM and replacing it by levies on GHG-emitting activities in Annex I Parties (e.g. tax on airline tickets) and/or on emissions trading , including on proceeds of permit auctions. (Such a change would correct the anomaly in the recently agreed governance for the Adaptation Fund giving Annex I Parties a role in decision-making when they are neither contributors nor recipients.);


• Mobilizing resources commensurate with needs (USD 28-67 billion in 2030 in non-Annex I Parties according to the secretariat report on investment and financial flows);

The governance of funding mechanisms under the Unfccc process has proved to be a problem. The GEF was selected to operate the financial mechanism of the Convention at the insistence of Annex I Parties, who claimed they wanted to avoid establishing new funds. However, its quasi-colonial system of governance was never fully accepted. That led to the establishment of several other funding mechanisms such as the SCCF, the LDCF and the Adaptation Fund, in order to avoid drawbacks and rigidities inherent in the GEF (composition of the Council, opaque replenishment procedures, RAF, etc ).The governance of the GEF does not meet criteria in Art.11.2 and it should not be entrusted with the operation of the financial mechanism of the Convention without a major overhaul.

The AWGLTC should review the GEF and other funding mechanisms established within the Unfccc process, including under the Kyoto Protocol, and promote a process to design and adopt an equitable governance system for a restructured GEF which could then be entrusted with funds from all sources and for all purposes. That will make it possible to streamline the structure for channeling official funds. CEOs from developed and developing countries should alternate. A first CEO from a developing country should be appointed as soon as possible.