Category: Previous Issues Articles

Colleagues in the Pacific have told ECO that in Pacific tradition, when the villagers encounter an incomprehensible problem, they often seek the guidance of a person who possesses extensive knowledge and experience for clarity and guidance: the village chief. As holders of custom, they play a vital part in maintaining the harmony of their communities. One important role that the chiefs have is their advisory services. Their advice is not binding but because chiefs are primary holders of custom, their advice carries great moral authority that is often respected.

The international community is currently facing a political and economic impasse in the climate change regime. Despite the creation of the hard-fought for Paris Agreement, clear gaps in ambition, accountability, and equity and fairness still exist and have been proven to be stumbling blocks in global efforts to embrace the climate crisis. As a result, humanity is now about to enter an epoch where the adverse effects of the climate crisis will be irreparable and irreversible. This decade is our last chance to avert a climate catastrophe that may end human society as we have known it, resulting in unprecedented suffering and decline for all economies, all peoples, and all societies. ECO thinks it is time to turn to our village chief to seek their advice for a way out of this impasse.
... Read more ...

Dear Minister Guilbeault,

ECO is concerned about oil, gas and petrochemical companies being given event space at the first-ever Canada Pavilion at a COP. Expecting support from friends in civil society, ECO formally requests that the Canada Pavilion cancel the Pathways Alliance Event on 11 November, and all other events featuring participation by oil, gas or petrochemical companies.

Industries aligned with climate action would receive ECO’s welcome in event programming, and there are many of these companies present at COP27. However, oil and gas companies, like those active within the Pathways Alliance, have been the biggest obstacle to climate action – both at COP and back in Canada, and for decades now have made their fortunes while millions around the world suffer the tragedies of climate impacts.

Oil and gas companies are touting themselves as climate leaders, while in fact their activities continue to erode the rights and negatively impact the health and culture of Indigenous communities, notably through trillions of litres of toxic waste stored in tailings “ponds.” Companies keep pointing to carbon capture and storage — despite the technology’s decades-long track record of underperformance and failure. And even if the technology did work, carbon capture would do nothing about the environmental harm caused to Indigenous nations at the frontlines of oil and gas extraction.
... Read more ...

Throughout UNFCCC negotiations, ECO has exposed a number of “elephants in the room.” Now, it’s beyond time to acknowledge another one. It has been there waiting since negotiations began before 1992.

It might feel unsettling or even scary to address this particular elephant, because it is armed and dangerous. But ECO wants to speak out anyway, because the creature we are looking at could be emitting as much as 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions!

Yesterday ECO was present at an event where the governments of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova were sharing how war could affect climate reporting. These presenters showed us some terrifying numbers. It is estimated that during seven months of Russian invasion of Ukraine, the conflict brought into the world around 33 million tons of climate pollution. Two thirds of those come from burning forests. And don’t forget that entire cities would need to be rebuilt after the war, which could result in additional 50 million tons of emissions.
ECO has not forgotten that under the Paris Agreement, countries are not obliged to cut their military emissions. However, there is no automatic exemption for them either. So, it all becomes voluntary. And as we know – if countries can avoid doing something while not being called out for it, this is what they will do.
... Read more ...

ECO is happy to share this part of our publication with the Indigenous Peoples Caucus(IPO) to help amplify their voice. This article reflects the views of the IPO.
There’s a lot to be disappointed about when it comes to the climate finance negotiations taking place at COP 27. In particular, the narrow focus of heads of state and their preferred corporate partners defining and designing climate finance mechanisms. This means that they promote false solutions through carbon market schemes and supporting misplaced renewable energy development and misleading net-zero initiatives. These false solutions continue to impinge upon the rights of Indigenous Peoples and facilitate land theft and displacement of Indigenous Peoples. These realities are why the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change calls for access, transparency and accountability on climate finance in COP 27.

It’s important to remember that the discussions that led to the concept of climate finance come from the need to deal with the real economic costs of the climate crisis arising from extreme weather events and the losses and damages experienced by Indigenous Peoples.

These issues range from the loss of land, homes, and destruction to communities from extreme weather shifts, destruction of food systems, and loss of biodiversity just to name a few.
... Read more ...

Today is Finance Day at COP27, which makes it the perfect time to reflect on the climate-related financial flows of the world’s rich countries. And no country’s finance is flowing more than Japan’s – but in the completely wrong direction. 

Japan is the world’s largest public financier for oil, gas, and coal projects, contributing US $10.6 billion per year on average between 2019 and 2021. Despite international recognition that meeting the 1.5℃ goal means ending investment in fossil fuels, the Japanese government is making huge efforts to export false solutions to other countries such as using ammonia for coal fired power plants, which just meant to extend the life of coal power beyond 2030.

As you may or may not have even noticed, PM Kishida didn’t come to the Leaders Summit here in Sharm. Maybe he was too busy promoting false solutions in Japan?

In a year of unprecedented climate disasters, with vulnerable communities all over the world suffering from the impacts of climate change, Japan’s public finances are flowing into the fossil fuel projects responsible for this destruction rather than going towards financing the loss and damage caused by its own greenhouse gas emissions. 

Having trouble finding your (New Collective Quantified) Goal? When you don’t have a map it’s easy to go around in circles.

It’s Finance Day today, but it seems like things have not moved much since the Finance Day at Glasgow. We’re basically halfway through the 2020-2025 period, but the US$100 billion has not yet been found.

If anything, things look bleaker. Despite the IPCC confirming that the capital is there, more countries are suffering from a debt crisis, making Mark Carney’s GFANZ private finance trillions look like a fairy tale of empty promises for developing countries. Meanwhile, the fossil fuel crisis is making people poorer and fossil fuel companies richer. To ECO, it seems the best way to “mobilise” private sector finance is to seize the fossil windfall profits.

We’ve had 4 TEDs so far in 2022, but if anything ECO feels further away from agreeing a NCQG. Yesterday, ECO’s frustrations with the TEDs in the contact group were voiced by many developing country group’s negotiators, calling for clear milestones for convergence.

ECO would like to remind readers that the NCQG is, at its core, about developed countries making a commitment of public finance for developing countries. The needs are in the trillions of dollars per year, and inaction means that needs are growing.
... Read more ...

ECO is worried as it reads the summary report of the four workshops under the Glasgow Sharm El-Sheikh work programme (GlaSS) on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA). It claims incremental progress, but this is clearly not enough when the urgent need is for rapid transformation. And it leaves us with a huge gap between the GlaSS work programme and the needs and rights of the most vulnerable people and ecosystems.

Let ECO remind parties that GlaSS is now at the halfway point towards adopting a decision on GGA in COP28.  And it is looking pretty flimsy. We need a concrete outcome here at COP27, which reflects what is needed by people on the frontlines working to build their capacity and resilience, and reduce their vulnerability.

Parties: we have to move past diplomatic niceties and negotiations, and decide what can meaningfully be done to ‘strengthen implementation of adaptation actions in vulnerable developing countries. ECO suggests that the next four workshops should reflect the strands from the first four: sectoral approaches, locally-led adaptation, ecosystem and nature-based solutions, financial and technical support. This would finally bring real meaning to the global goal and provide the means for reaching it.

And so, as we go into informal consultations, this Capacity Building Day, let’s work constructively to get the GlaSS house in order by the end of COP27.

ECO welcomes the initiative of the UK to set up the Forests and Climate Leaders’ Partnership and the commitment by Parties to review progress towards its implementation. This is critical given the important role that halting deforestation and land degradation would play in achieving 1.5ºC. It is a fundamental step to hold Parties accountable for the commitments they made under the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use.

However, ECO notes with concern that of the 140+ Parties that signed the declaration last year, only 27 seem to have stepped up to lead its implementation. Wasn’t this meant to be the COP for “implementation”? We need every country in this space to lead.

ECO is also very worried that most speakers placed a strong emphasis on tree planting and carbon markets. Planting new trees simply cannot replace the carbon stock in primary forests in relevant timeframes. Especially so, if these are planted in the form of monoculture tree plantations, this can result in very negative outcomes for people, particularly groups who have been historically marginalized such as women, and for biodiversity.

Also, ECO would like to remind everyone that action in the land sector must not be a substitute for a rapid fossil-fuel phase out and must not delay urgent decarbonization.
... Read more ...

ECO hears that text on the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP) will be coming out early tomorrow. While ECO waits to see what’s in it, it seemed like a good time to remind Parties of some of the things you signed up to last year. Things that you seem to have forgotten.

In the so-called Glasgow Climate Pact (Decision 1/CMA.3) you recognized that “limiting global warming to 1.5 °C requires rapid, deep and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions, including reducing global carbon dioxide emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to the 2010 level and to net zero around mid-century”, as well as deep reductions in other greenhouse gases.

Oh-oh: you also recognized that “this requires accelerated action in this critical decade, on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge and equity, reflecting common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”. Guess what: you also emphasized “the urgent need for Parties to increase their efforts to collectively reduce emissions through accelerated action and implementation of domestic mitigation measures in accordance with Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Paris Agreement”. You established a work programme to urgently scale up mitigation ambition and implementation in this critical decade, and just a few paragraphs below you decided to convene an annual high-level ministerial round table on pre-2030 ambition.
... Read more ...

The decision text on the second periodic review of the long-term global goal is being negotiated, and ECO was lucky to have a sneak preview of the first draft. It is good to see text reiterating the latest IPCC findings, including the need to halve global emissions by 2030 in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Surely, no negotiator will oppose what their scientist colleagues have already agreed?
We are also happy to see that the draft decision recognises that limiting temperature rise to 1.5°C is the only correct interpretation of the long-term global goal agreed in Paris, and that it urges all countries to support this. As evidenced by the devastating impacts that we have witnessed in recent years, even the current temperature rise of 1.1°C cannot be considered safe – 1.5°C is really the maximum the world can afford.     
ECO recommends Parties include two further points in the decision:
(1) Equity is key to achieving the long-term global goal. This was a clear message from the Structured Expert Dialogue and needs to be recognised. However, it cannot be used to stall progress. Those countries with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol have largely overachieved their 2013-2020 commitments.
... Read more ...