Category: Previous Issues Articles

After a very slow process last year, ECO is happy to see that the pace of the negotiations for NDC guidelines has picked up over the last two weeks. If negotiators can keep up the good spirit that we experienced here in Bonn, the guidelines might be ready for take-off. Together with the other parts of the Paris Agreement Work Programme, the negotiations should reach Katowice, after a short layover in Bangkok, with a valuable cargo of draft NDC guidelines. These guidelines will help countries develop better, more ambitious NDCs that will also enable sustainable development and poverty reduction, and help them step into a low emission future.

ECO will stand by and hope to watch from the ground how the negotiations are flying during the coming months. While we certainly hope for flying progress, and not a return to the bumpy road we have followed before, we would like to draw your attention to the safety features of the NDCs guidelines. The NDC features should ensure sustainability, respect for human rights and indigenous peoples, as well as preservation of biodiversity and ecosystems. The accounting rules should enable the inclusion of the many  important small-scale solutions and they should give a transparent picture of how each NDC will contribute to the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
... Read more ...

ECO has been hearing very positive reviews from Sunday`s Talanoa Dialogues, even from some erstwhile Talanoa skeptics. The good feelings, positive dynamics and constructive engagement can’t all have been the effect of the kava. Concerns that issues of equity, finance and pre-2020 responsibilities would be pushed aside have not born out. There was indeed space for all stories, including in reports back from the session yesterday.

Now the question is how to turn the stories and  positive spirit into effective ongoing dialogues, both in the preparatory and political phases, that generate the concrete outcomes and greater ambition needed to close the emissions gap and put us on a path to hold warming to 1.5°C.

We expect to get some clarity on this at the closing session today, but ECO knows that the Parties and the Presidencies are still digesting the events over the past week, and so may need time to develop ideas and plans in the coming months. Those ideas can be tested and refined during the Petersberg Dialogue and MoCA ministerial meetings.

The Bangkok meeting will be an ideal opportunity for the COP presidencies to update parties on their evolving plans for the Talanoa Dialogue during COP24, and get feedback from parties and observers alike.
... Read more ...

ECO was sat for seven long days patiently listening to questions and comments by Parties. But then, it appears the light appeared and ECO was delighted to see progress on article 6 with a revised note (though still just draft elements) presented yesterday morning by the SBSTA co-chairs. ECO would like to draw the attention of negotiators to three key aspects coming out of SB48:

1. While it is great to see additional references to human rights in the revised draft notes, the call from several Parties to delete the “Principles” sections of these notes is concerning. Rather than eliminating them, more Parties should stand up to defend these Principles, including references to human rights, sustainable development, and the achievement of overall mitigation of GHG emissions. ECO is certain that Parties will want to take this opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the CDM, which failed to uphold human rights and sustainable development.
2. Several new options were added to the informal notes on ways to achieve overall mitigation through Article 6. A constructive way to reach this goal would be a percentage cancellation of credits, contrary to assuming that the mere existence of the mechanism leads to this overall mitigation objective.

ECO is excited by the progress to a “navigation tool” as the 160+ page text for NDCs was a bit unwieldy. Even more thrilling is that in accepting this navigation tool Parties didn’t forget about “the Great Eight” – the eight rights-related dimensions in the Paris Agreement preamble: human rights, indigenous peoples’ rights, public participation, gender, just transition, ecosystem integrity and protection of biodiversity, food security, and intergenerational equity. ECO is pleased to see such a promising development!

To make sure that the Great Eight don’t get lost on the way to Bangkok and Katowice, negotiators need to reiterate their support for these rights-related dimensions that orient Paris being reflected in the decision guiding implementation.

ECO also has a few suggestions as Parties look towards Bangkok. First, Parties should stress the difference between the procedural dimension of integrating human rights in the planning of the NDCs (e.g. ensuring public participation) and the substantive dimension (e.g. considering how the policies proposed in the NDCs contribute to realising societal objectives). ECO hopes that the next iteration of the text will clear any confusion between these two dimensions.

And as Parties build on this navigation tool, ECO suggests they also include other critical rights-related elements such as, food security, ecosystem integrity and the protection of biodiversity, and intergenerational equity – particularly as these elements were all mentioned during the negotiations last week.
... Read more ...

One of the most celebrated outcomes of COP23 was the operationalization of Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples’ Platform (LCIPP). ECO congratulates Parties for establishing a path to enable the UNFCCC to improve recognition of the perspectives and rights of Indigenous Peoples and their importance for climate action.

Building on this success, LCIPP negotiations resumed positively last week. However, this positive spirit seemed lost yesterday during the final negotiations on the establishment of a Facilitative Working Group. One Party, in particular, laid out red lines and used provisions from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) to curtail, rather than strengthen, the work of the Platform and the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

As a result, the negotiations have not yet been finalised and left many issues, both technical and highly political, were left unresolved. Parties now have one final chance to conclude discussions lest the decisions forwarded to Katowice overwhelm the already-packed COP24 agenda.

Mitigating climate change in line with the Paris temperature goals and building more resilient societies requires the contribution of all – in particular learning from communities, traditional knowledge keepers and Indigenous Peoples’ experiences. It also includes respecting the interrelated, interdependent, and indivisible rights of Indigenous Peoples including those reaffirmed in UNDRIP, when developing solutions to the climate crisis.
... Read more ...

The Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) told parties in the Talanoa Dialogue they need to step up and enhance their climate ambition before 2020. ECO is wondering if this plea was heard?

The CVF seem to be sensing that parties are sleeping on their laurels while climate impacts ravage their countries, threaten their very existence and cause serious and costly damage and loss of livelihood.

The CVF told parties that their NDCs are seriously outdated. If the NDCs remain as they are, It’s likely that we will just disappear because of the rise of temperatures soaring to 3.7°C. There will also be sea level rise that will drown whole islands, with vulnerable states and flood refugees across the world. So let’s ask ourselves, what is the story we want to tell in Talanoa in decades to come? What would be ideal is  for all countries to tell their stories of  how they updated their climate plans, transformed their sectors and used renewable energy, people stayed in their land and dwelled in prosperity? ECO asks, which of these two is a better story to tell?

In other words, CVF said: step up and catch up with the real economy. Why are we opting for the archaic and the passé while we can have innovation and avant-garde clean technology and a future?The
... Read more ...

ECO has mixed feelings about the outcome of this session on Global Stocktake.

On one hand it was encouraging to see progress on the “informal note” but on the other it was also disappointing that Parties didn’t seem ready to get to the fundamental discussion.

For example, when co-facilitators presented their “tool” to illustrate a possible model of a GST timeline, there was a sense of hesitation on Parties’ side to engage. ECO understands negotiators’ need to “clarify” some things first, but we really need to break the ice and move forward.

Since ECO doesn’t have to concern itself with such sensitivities, let us put forward one illustrative timeline, inspired by the co-facilitators’ tool. Of course, it doesn’t do justice to the complexity of the GST but that’s not the point here.

The point here is that looking at specific requirements, e.g. with regards to sequencing of important milestones to ensure that they all can actually be fulfilled, allows fundamental decisions to be made.

Dear delegate, do you see your important issues in the figure? No? Then tell us where it should sit in the figure.  In that way, we (you, Parties) can start a real conversation to create a draft text for COP24 decisions.
... Read more ...

ECO is here to explain why pre-2020 action is still a thing, and why, with 2020 creeping up, all Parties should be preparing for the pre-2020 stocktake to be held at COP24. At the heart of this issue are two components: trust and urgency. With insufficient pre-2020 action, ECO sees a very real risk of setting a precedent of not honouring deals made and undermining trust between Parties, just as they are entering the implementation period of the Paris Agreement. Additionally, the IPCC 1.5°C special report coming out this fall is likely to remind us of the urgent action needed for countries to get on track with the Paris Agreement’s long-term goals, and sooner will be cheaper. This is why pre-2020 climate action, as a topic in the UNFCCC, and in the form of action on the ground, is not just a box you have to tick at COP24.

At COP24 Parties will have the opportunity to honestly take stock of pre-2020 implementation and ambition and communicate how they will be closing the gaps that Sunday’s Talanoa dialogue so clearly highlighted. This stocktake has value in itself, but it will also be valuable as input to the political phase of the Talanoa Dialogue.
... Read more ...

Once upon a time at COP21, ECO fought for guiding principles in the Paris Agreement. One of them was food security. At that time, many countries were skeptical and asked, “what is this strange thing, food security? We only know food production.” So ECO worked really hard to socialize among Parties the internationally agreed FAO definition with the four pillars of food security. At COP23, ECO was thrilled to see the creation of the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA) with a clear purpose that includes consideration of food security.

When negotiations on the KJWA roadmap began, ECO suggested Parties acknowledge FAO’s definition to operationalize this part of the COP23 decision. FAO is a UN body, after all. But no!  ECO could not find any reference to this definition in the draft conclusions discussed this week.

Must we assume ECO’s hard work paid off and that this definition is now crystal-clear for all the parties leaving no need for a reminder of the FAO definition and its four pillars? What a steep learning curve this would be!

ECO is truly confident negotiators fully grasp the fundamental difference between the UNFCCC reference to food production and the KJWA’s focus on food security.
... Read more ...

Just a quick reminder from ECO to Parties: The Global Stocktake (GST) is about “achieving the purpose of the Paris Agreement and its long-term goals,” which has to be done in a comprehensive manner. An integral part of the Paris Agreement is Article 8 which demands assessing the progress on “averting, minimizing and addressing Loss and Damage”. Taking such progress into account in the GST is a litmus test of our collective progress towards these goals.

The Paris Agreement recognized loss and damage as the third pillar of climate action – alongside mitigation and adaptation. All three pillars are fundamentally connected: inadequate mitigation and insufficient adaptation will result in more loss and damage. Vulnerable countries, communities and ecosystems are already facing devastating impacts at ‘just’ 1ºC of warming. The long-term temperature goal of the Agreement defined in Article 2.1(a) explicitly recognizes that achieving this goal would significantly reduce the risk and impacts of climate change. If we want to collectively progress towards this goal, an assessment of the risks and impacts of the gap between current ambition and the long-term goals should therefore be included.

Article 14 is very clear in this regard: The purpose of the GST is to take stock of the implementation of the entire Paris Agreement.
... Read more ...