Categoría: Previous Issues Articles

The post-Copenhagen vogue has been all about self-differentiation. Everyone wants to talk about it! This is good news, because if we don’t differentiate contributions and rules and get trapped in pure self-differentiation, we’ll lack the overdue ambition needed to tackle climate change .

But we’ll need to become a lot clearer about the differentiation challenge. So what is needed now? Let’s start with top-down elements – e.g. equity based comparative review and ratcheting – integrated in the Paris agreement. To that end, ECO raises the following three questions:

1) How do we differentiate?

The old binary distinction between “developed» and “developing” countries is unacceptable to (ahem) developed countries. Meanwhile, developing countries will not accept a new accord without a distinction between groups of countries.

So, what to do? Ideas are flying! We have Brazil’s “concentric circles” proposal and South’s Africa’s equity reference framework. There’s also America’s rather tongue-in-cheek suggestion for a formulation in which emissions and economic indicators are used to define dynamic groups called “Annex X” and “Annex Y”. Then there’s Ethiopia with their different formulation of dynamic annexes, based on per capita GHG and GDP indicators. And just about everyone’s future features “cycles.”

2) Which rules should apply to which groups?
... Read more ...

ECO hears a lot of talk about the ‘real’ world — that thing outside of the UNFCCC negotiations, remember? Don’t worry, it still exists. And to be fair, outside of our bubble, there are others too, like the post-2015 sustainable development goals or development finance ones. All three of these bubbles are in motion this year, and their paths will cross. And we all know what happens when bubbles collide, or worse, burst. And that makes Liechtenstein’s signpost to the sustainable development goals in the preamble of the Geneva text very welcome.

Locals calling for climate action in Geneva, Switzerland, Photo: Linh Do

With the post-2015 sustainable development process, the Heads of States Summit at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) later this year in September will set the tone for Paris.

So, shouldn’t the development framework for the next 15 years also deliver action on mitigation, adaptation, resilience, etc.? It only makes sense that the millennium declaration illustrates how climate-proof development and sustainable development are interlinked. This kind of support for the UNFCCC would be most welcome, especially in strong statements from world leaders in New York.

But, dear Parties, you don’t have to wait until September. You can start as early as next week, because there’s a UNGA session from 17-20 February.
... Read more ...

The main focus here in Geneva is on shaping the Paris agreement for the post-2020 period. Nevertheless, it is critical that we do not lose sight of the need to increase our climate actions from now up to 2020 as well.

Even if a global climate agreement is reached in Paris this December, most of the proposals and targets for cutting emissions won’t kick in until after 2020. But the coming five years are absolutely vital in the battle against climate change.

During these five years global emissions should be peaking and then falling, or at the very least, levelling off. At the moment the pre-2020 period doesn’t seem to have much priority in most countries, despite the fact that emissions must peak within this decade to keep global warming below 2°C. It is no secret that with current emission trends we are heading for a 3.6 to 4°C scenario; just check the IPCC’s work. We can’t allow emission figures to drift ever upwards — otherwise the long-term goals will become even harder to meet.

We know that many countries have already started taking actions on climate change at the national level. But we also know that these have not gone far enough.
... Read more ...

2015 will be a trek. One summit followed by another, ending with a steep climb to Paris. The first peak will be reached next month with delegates meeting at the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (WCDRR) in Sendai, Japan to finalise a new framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). ECO has some thoughts about outcomes at Sendai:

1. A strong signal that climate change is already increasing the frequency, intensity and unpredictability of natural disasters. Reducing disaster risks will require emissions to be cut drastically.
2. Ramp up support for disaster risk reduction action. Disaster preparedness is not a solo undertaking. Often a practitioner gap exists between DRR institutions and those doing adaptation on the ground. This results in bad planning and loss of crucial resources. Sendai should bridge that gap and transform DRR into “strategic DRR”.
3. Initiate a framework that tracks countries’ progress in advancing DRR both qualitatively and in metrics. This framework could also provide valuable learning and bring coherence in implementation of adaptation actions.
4. Promote approaches to tackle ‘exceeding national capacities’, which is a gap in the international system. Sometimes countries are overwhelmed by disasters. For many countries, these disasters are a direct result of our changing climate. The DRR needs of affected countries should be matched by reliable support, recognising collective and differentiated responsibilities.

It’s Wednesday, and the spirit with which we began the week seems to be vanishing. And quickly at that. ECO wants Parties – facilitated by the ADP Co-Chairs – to continue negotiating with the same spirit they started off with, robustly and with purpose. It’s great that Parties feel ownership of the text, and this can be gauged by the inputs made to the text. Now is the time to begin identifying ways to streamline the text, while ensuring all inputs for an ambitious Paris agreement are retained.

The draft contains some promising ideas that must be nurtured and developed further in order for the text to remain ambitious. ECO knows Parties are busy this week, so we wanted to remind them of these core ideas so they don’t get lost in the streamlining. In the context of reminding Parties of the need to have a long-term goal within the text, ECO is particularly happy to see references ensuring we stay on a 1.5°C trajectory. This trajectory can only be achieved through a phase-out of fossil fuel emissions and phase- in of 100% renewable energy, enabling sustainable energy access for all, no later than 2050. This goal should be complemented with commitments by Parties to close the short-term mitigation gap, and to operationalise enablers like finance, technology and capacity building to fill in the foundation for achieving this goal.
... Read more ...

Workstream 2 is great: without it, no long term goal matters, however it’s expressed. 2020 is simply too late unless parties take bold actions in the next 5 years. ECO was thrilled to see all of yesterday devoted to the 2015 technical examination process.

It is high time to move beyond identifying promising options and admiring great examples to the question of how we can scale up, replicate and implement. We need an effective mechanism to harness opportunities for additional ambition in the 2015-20 period. Here are a few simple suggestions:

• Focus the next TEMs of the solutions that have garnered the most support so far and those offering the largest potential benefits (deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency at scale as well as on those that cut fossil fuel subsidies);
• Move beyond identifying options and examples, instead focus on implementation: how can existing barriers be overcome and and needs addressed?;
• Get specific about how existing institutions such as the TEC, the CTCN and the GCF should support best practices identified in Workstream 2;
• Create new partnerships and recognise existing initiatives that bring together pioneers and deliver significant additional mitigation results.

There also need to be criteria to distinguish meaningful initiatives from the greenwash.
... Read more ...

As negotiators discuss how and where to include human rights references in the negotiating text, Panama has set a real world example. ECO warmly welcomes the decision by Panama’s environmental authority to temporarily suspend the Barro Blanco hydroelectric dam over noncompliance with its environmental impact assessment, including consultation requirements.

For the past several years, the indigenous Ngöbe communities have stood in firm opposition to the Barro Blanco dam, which would flood the homes of many indigenous families living at the Tabasará River. Where does the UNFCCC come in? Well, despite strong community resistance, the project developer applied for registration under the Clean Development Mechanism. When alerted about the danger indigenous families were facing, the CDM Board decided that the CDM’s consultation standards had been met and approved the project. There’s no question we need to fight climate change. But there’s no justification for violating human rights in the process.

Panama’s suspension of the project following the CDM Board’s decision to approve the Barro Blanco project is a game changer. Credible international climate policy needs to be consistent with existing obligations, and those obligations must be recognised and operationalised in the 2015 agreement. Dear delegates: don’t let projects like Barro Blanco undermine the integrity of international climate policy – our future climate deal should respect, protect, promote and help realise human rights.

Parties in the Workstream 2 Technical Expert Process yesterday coined a new acronym: MFN, “More, Faster, Now.” ECO is not a fan of acronyms for acronyms sake but this one could prove useful, particularly for those parties with a dirty coal habit.

It emerged that a number of OECD parties—Japan, South Korea, and Germany among them—have spent nearly US$15 billion over the past 10 years on exports of coal technologies abroad. This has made these fossil fuel projects cheaper than clean and renewable energy solutions.

Renewable energy solutions have innumerable benefits: the MFN mantra is more action on climate change at a faster pace, starting now. Spending billions on technology exports to advance the use of the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel does exactly the opposite.

ECO hopes this misunderstanding can be cleared up, ASAP, starting at the OECD Export Credit Group deliberations later this year.