Categoría: Previous Issues Articles

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 ...

As the demand for water, land and food increases, and as climate change intensifies, wetlands are the most rapidly declining ecosystems in the world. When these natural buffers lose their ability to effectively store and regulate water, and support food production, people are deprived of their well-being, resulting in social tensions, conflict and sometimes human mobility. And, as both the IPCC and IPBES recognise, some wetlands also function as important carbon stores and natural defenses against flood damage. Wetland conservation and restoration therefore make perfect climate sense!

Although the exact relationship will be context specific, the nexus between the health of wetland ecosystems, human mobility and security deserves much greater attention in the context of climate adaptation, development and humanitarian strategies.

The WIM ExCom in 2016 called for more information on reasons for internal and cross-border migration, displacement and other forms of human mobility related to climate change impacts. At least 32 of the 69 submissions received referred to water hazards and stressors as drivers of human mobility, but only few of them referred to freshwater ecosystem degradation. In addition, little information was brought forward about how to address such hazards and degradations.

COP21 requested the ExCom to establish a task force to develop recommendations for integrated approaches to avert, minimize and address displacement related to the adverse impacts of climate change.
... Read more ...

Boum chAPAlakalaka Boum chAPAlakalaka  (cursive font)

Hey CMA, this is for you!

Address loss and damage as you all agreed to

8.2 are the words you should heed

To give WIM guidance and authority

Boum chAPAlakalaka Boum chAPAlakalaka (cursive font)

If you don’t want L&D under the APA

Just agree in Bonn to start the work at the next CMA

8.3, enhance action and support!

Through WIM and beyond, CMA1 start the work!

ECO is getting worried that the negotiators do not have a common view on the timeframe issue to make a decision on the Common Timeframes. How ironic is it to negotiate on common timeframes without a common timeframe for adopting a decision? ECO believes that a good timeframe for this decision to be made would be by December, when it should be concluded as part of the PAWP package in Katowice.

ECO looks forward to «sunny Bangkok” to the further discussions on the draft conclusion together with the CRP documents. Echoing AOSIS, African Group, LDC, and Brazil, ECO is a big fan of a shorter NDC implementation period. And therefore encourages countries to adopt the positive spirit outlined by China by considering the «advantages» of a 5 year commitment period. A common timeframe of NDC implementation between 2031 and 2035 would help us avoid locking in low levels of ambition, harness rapidly evolving real world opportunities, incentivize early action, and synchronize better with the broader Paris climate regime.

On the first day of week 2, ECO would like to help answer a crucial question: what actually makes climate finance predictable? Well, ECO definitely thinks that part of the answer is for countries to provide the relevant information to show how they intend to scale up climate finance. But predictability is also about creating a process that will help developing countries make the best use of this information and plan their climate actions accordingly.

As the second week of negotiations begins, ECO encourages negotiators and the co-chairs to focus on the things all Parties agree on. It seems, based on discussions on the SBI and on the APA, that all Parties agree on one thing: Developed countries should prepare robust and complete biennial submissions on the strategies and approaches. ECO encourages all developed countries to submit them as early as possible. However, countries still need to agree on how this information will be used and communicated in a way that builds trust among Parties.

ECO would like to propose some preliminary suggestions:

1. Parties could explore how the information related to predictability can inform important moments related to finance, such as the High Level Ministerials or the long term finance workshops.

Yesterday, 105 non-Party stakeholders and 210 Party representatives came together for the Talanoa Dialogue. Fighting negotiation fatigue, vitamin D deficiency, and hangovers from the CAN party the night before, these gallant individuals approached the dialogue with open hearts and minds. Luckily, ECO could follow along remotely – listening to all 7 work-streams addressing each of the 3 core questions of the Talanoa Dialogue: where are we, where do we want to go and how do we get there.

We heard about the desperate need to protect those most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change through enhanced mitigation ambition and greater support. We heard the frustrations at the pace and scale of action and support. We heard calls for action from all sectors of the community – governments, cities, businesses, scientists, indigenous peoples, youth, and civil society. We also heard inspiring stories of how challenges have been overcome, the actions that are occurring and of the willingness to do more. Finally, we heard a strong collective call for leaders to step up and turn this Dialogue into action at COP24.

ECO would like to congratulate all participants on their willingness to open up and share stories in the spirit of the Dialogue.
... Read more ...

ECO congratulates Mr. Michał Kurtyka on his nomination as the COP24 president and looks forward to the opportunities this week brings for Parties and civil society to meet the upcoming presidency. With high stakes for this year’s COP – both in relation to the level of ambition and to the implementation of the guidelines, the Polish leadership will be key to the success of COP.

Yet, one of the first steps taken by Poland during the process of organising this coming COP was the adoption of a law containing provisions seeking to curtail civil and political rights in relation to the event. This law authorises the police to violate the privacy of all COP-24 participants, as it usually would only be authorized to do for people suspected of crime. Additionally, the government imposed an exceptional ban on any spontaneous manifestation during the COP.

The issue is so serious that several UN institutions have questioned the Polish government as to whether the law passed by the Polish parliament and approved by the President was compatible with the obligation of the country in relation to respecting the rights of civil society.
ECO recognizes the importance for the Polish presidency to guarantee the security of all COP participants and trusts that the Polish government will adequately deliver this by building on their previous experiences in Poznan and Warsaw.
... Read more ...

For too long donor reports on climate finance have been based on a mishmash of approaches and some questionable methodologies.  This resulted in over-counting support in many donor reports.  Reaching an agreement on a new set of rules at COP24 presents a long overdue opportunity to address this and build confidence that the US$100 billion commitment will be met in a fair and robust way.

ECO congratulates the G77 on providing a comprehensive, clear, and constructive submission which can help pave the way for an agreement on accounting standards. Importantly, the submission includes a proposal that Parties shall report both the face value and the grant-equivalent of their climate finance, as well as proposing that only the grant-equivalent shall be counted towards climate finance obligations.

This is a major point because a high proportion of climate finance is provided in the form of loans, which most donors are counting at face value. According to Oxfam’s recent analysis of 2015-16 numbers, loans are estimated to be 2/3 of overall public climate finance. The fact that they are being counted at face value is overstating the net assistance to developing countries by around an estimated $20 b per year (2015-16).

The Third Biennial Reports shows that France provided only 7% of its climate finance as grants, Spain 18%, Germany 36%, and Japan somewhere between 8% and 28%.
... Read more ...