Categoría: Previous Issues Articles

Yesterday morning, ECO started the day full of hope and energy, eager to join the class reunion. On its way to the World Conference Center in Bonn (WCCB), ECO enjoyed the bright sunshine and happily greeted old and new UNFCCC friends, while patiently waiting for its SB56 badge. After all, this was a special moment: the last in-person intersessional was 3 years ago!

The first day of the intersessional meetings started on a positive note as at the beginning of the SBSTA opening plenary, parties agreed to adopt a supplementary agenda item on the “Glasgow–Sharm el-Sheikh Work Programme on the Global Goal on Adaptation” (GlaSS).

However, the honeymoon feeling did not last very long. Immediately after, ECO sadly witnessed the 1-hour+ debate on whether there should be “two” or “at least two” meetings on the GlaSS at SB56. Now, who likes to discuss such logistics on their honeymoon?

 A vast majority of Parties took the floor to express the need to not restrict the time and number of sessions dedicated to discussions on adaptation, which clearly is a very high priority given the acceleration of climate impacts. The Africa Group called on Parties to scale up adaptation action and regretted having to request the addition of an agenda item on this while it was mandated in COP26 decisions.
... Read more ...

At the start of this year’s SBs, ECO would like to remind you of an important fact: while inside the conference center, arrangements for the funding to avert, minimize and address Loss and Damage (L&D) will be discussed from tomorrow on at the Glasgow Dialogue, outside people are already paying for L&D! It’s the most vulnerable people being least responsible for the causes of climate change. According to a study by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), rural Bangladesh households are spending almost US$ 2 billion a year to repair the damage caused by climate change and on preventative measures. This is twice the amount the government of Bangladesh spends, and 12 times more than international donors. This is the opposite of what we call climate justice!

ECO has noted that some countries in the Global North have recognized the problem. The communiqué by G7 ministers recently recognized  “the urgent need for scaling-up action and support, as appropriate, including finance, technology and capacity-building, for the implementation of relevant approaches to averting, minimising and addressing loss and damage in developing countries”. This is a good first step, but mere recognition does not help people rebuilding destroyed homes or dealing with non-economic damages such as loss of biodiversity, culture or language.
... Read more ...

Yesterday, IPCC lead authors gave a presentation to Parties on the Working Group II contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) , focusing on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. The scientists delivered a grim message: human-induced climate change is causing dangerous and widespread disruption affecting the lives of billions of people, with people and ecosystems least able to cope being hit the hardest.  They gave a dire warning about the consequences of inaction with the world facing unavoidable multiple climate hazards over the next decades – even if we are able to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C. And they also made clear that even temporarily exceeding this magnitude of warming will result in additional severe impacts, some of which will be irreversible.

Tomorrow IPCC lead authors of the Working Group III report will tell Parties that it is still possible to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C and inform them about the pathways available to do this. Lest they spent the last 20 years living under a rock, Parties will not be surprised to hear these pathways require major transitions in all economic sectors, substantial reductions in the use of energy and natural resources, and the rapid phase-out of all fossil fuels.
... Read more ...

Today is the day to demand results from the most critical compromise of COP26: after G77+China demanded a Loss and Damage finance facility, they were fobbed off with the Glasgow Dialogue. Now ECO came across this great recipe for preparing a successful Glasgow Dialogue that can at least live up to its potential. A filling main dish that really supports those most impacted by the climate crisis,to prevent the bitter aftertaste of a talk-shop without results.

To avoid a bland taste and disappointing expectations, you need the following ingredients:
A good portion of: concrete outcomes that provide adequate, new and additional support for the most vulnerable people and countries in addressing L&D.
Avoid: duplication of previous dialogues – but focus on existing gaps and ways to increase finance including to address L&D and respective channels to provide it.
Add liberally: clear modalities of a L&D finance facility:
Its institutional arrangements, sources of predictable, sustainable, adequate and additional L&D finance
Equitable and direct access for vulnerable developing countries based on needs and priorities.
At COP27 in Sharm-el-Sheik countries must set-up a L&D finance facility. Subsequently, the Glasgow Dialogue should flesh out the operationalization of such a facility, including how L&D finance is delivered and how it can be made accessible for the most vulnerable.
... Read more ...

Article 6.8 fans, today is your day! And for those who aren’t fans yet, here are some reasons you should be and ideas to bring forward in today’s workshop:

Article 6.8 has often been left behind in the negotiations with Parties focusing on the market mechanisms contained in other parts of Article 6. But 6.8 has the potential to bring ambitious action immediately. In advance of the 6.8 workshop, ECO wants to share and support the idea of a matching facility.

Article 6.8 offers exciting opportunities for real ambitious action through a holistic, integrated approach focusing on joint mitigation and adaptation, resilience and rights. This is particularly true in the land sector, where there is critical potential for climate action, as well as major risks for land and food rights, if not done right. The 6.8 mechanism is a strong avenue for ambitious action on land and in the oceans.

A web-based registry along with a “matching facility” that connects possible contributions – from governments, private sector, philanthropies or elsewhere – with opportunities to increase ambition and action, including within NDCs, would be an exciting and empowering outcome from COP27. Concretely, some Parties could list their needs as part of their NDC, and other Parties would list their support capacities.
... Read more ...

High-level ministers have finally arrived in Glasgow and are discussing Article 6. Hooray! Surely they’ve been paying attention to all of ECO’s asks, and will quickly agree on an extremely robust Article 6 package! Right? Except, well, that’s not quite what we’re hearing… 

Obviously it can be hard to tell what’s happening behind closed doors in ministerial discussions that observers are largely excluded from, but fear not! ECO has its ways, and has been privy to some of the deals that are currently being hashed out.

ECO would normally joke about the absurdity of some of the options on the table, but we are increasingly very worried that ministers are actually willing to compromise on grave issues… like whether corresponding adjustments should apply to all Article 6 transactions or not.

ECO really wished it wouldn’t need to spend its time explaining why double counting, including double claiming, is a monster. However, some Parties are strongly lobbying to drop corresponding adjustments from being applied to “other international mitigation purposes” (OIMP). 

ECO heard that it’s coming from you, US and Japan, and that the COP Presidency, Brazil and others are keenly embracing it. ECO hopes that’s not true. And apparently this proposal is worryingly gaining traction among ministers.
... Read more ...

ECO was always a fan of chemistry lessons at school. Understand the elements correctly; consider compounds, composition, structure, and you can get the reaction you are looking for on your litmus test.

And as set out in ECO first COP26 issue, finance to support addressing (including recovering from) Loss and Damage, will be ECO’s litmus test for COP26. Parties must respond to climate-induced losses and damages around the world, and deliver new and additional financial resources to address it.

But the proposed solution is not looking good. So ECO would like to remind ministers and negotiators how to get the perfect formula for addressing Loss and Damage.

Globally, we have already entered the era of Loss and Damage. ECO appreciates that, at least in the last draft cover decision ECO saw, parties reiterate the urgency of scaling up action and support, including finance, technology transfer and capacity-building, for averting, minimising and addressing loss and damage, and urge contributors and funds to provide enhanced and additional support. And that Parties also welcome agreement on functions and processes for the operationalisation of the Santiago network. The proper operationalisation of a needs-based Santiago Network will be an important catalyst for action on loss and damage.
... Read more ...

As we push forth in the final hours of  COP26, there is a feeling in the air of “what now? What have we accomplished? Where have we compromised? And most importantly, how do we take this story of COP26 back home? 

Sometimes it feels like you need a law degree just to follow a single negotiation item here, and the rigid structures and inaccessibility of this space are a harsh reminder that this colonial system was never designed with our participation in mind. As we follow negotiation updates under harsh fluorescent lighting, with little to no sleep, it’s easy to get caught up in the versions, the paragraph numbers, and the square brackets, soon perpetuating the same exclusive “in club” jargon we felt so excluded by on arrival. Our moods synchronise with the negotiation outcomes, and it can be hard to see beyond the disappointment of important language and references being stripped from texts.

But for Indigenous Peoples, COP26 doesn’t end on Saturday or Sunday. 

We can’t lose sight of the bigger picture, because we are here for our people back home. We have both the privilege and the pressure of representing communities who will never see the inside of a plenary hall, and so for many of us, a different kind of COP26 work begins when we leave Glasgow.
... Read more ...

Just as momentum was building towards agreement on 5-year Common Time Frames (CTFrs), with an end date of 2035 for the next NDCs, a new text takes us back to square one. 

The EU came around to 5 years just before the COP, and this week the China-USA statement said they would both submit, in 2025, an NDC for the period to 2035. The vast majority of countries, including AOSIS, LDCs, AILAC, and the Africa Group, all supported 5 years, and most of those wanting to keep the window open for 10 years either showed flexibility or likely had merely tactical motivations. 

A clear decision on 5-year CTFrs for NDCs from 2031 onwards appeared to be a slam dunk. 

But a new text out late-Thursday proposes that countries could opt out of submitting an NDC in the next round by 2025, while thereafter observing 5-year common time frames.

Along with exempting countries from raising their ambition by 2025, this would appear to be in violation of Article 4.9 of the Paris Agreement, which requires parties to submit an NDC every 5 years. Or at the very least, it provides no guidance for 2025.

The below version of the proposed paragraph 1 in the new text does the job nicely, and is all that is needed: 

1.
... Read more ...