Categoría: Previous Issues Articles

However the chips finally fall, the viability of the Paris Agreement will critically depend on its ambition mechanisms. The need for this is agreed. Unfortunately, agreement in principle is not enough. To stay below the 1.5°C limit, at least two additional and very specific things will be needed. The first is equity assessment of individual national pledges. The second is a post-Paris, pre-2020 ‘political moment’ in which the Parties can finish building out the core mechanisms of the Paris Agreement.

Such a political moment is almost in the cards, though a few words need to be added to the facilitative dialogue paragraph (para 20) to empower the dialogue to inform the review of not only future but also current INDCs. Moreover, the all-important words “and equity” should be added here, just as they appear in the global stocktake article (albeit still bracketed). Also, the scope of this dialogue should be expanded to reach beyond mitigation. This dialogue could take place in 2018 or earlier, so let’s just call this moment ‘2018’ for now.

What must happen between now and 2018? First, developed countries must continue to deepen their contributions, upping their pre-2020 ambitions and meeting the $100 billion goal. Second, the conditional pledges in the first round of INDCs need to be addressed.

If you wonder why vulnerable developing countries have demanded a Climate Change Displacement Coordination Facility (‘Facility’), the 22.5 million people displaced annually by weather related disasters since 2008 are happy to remind you. The Facility, as a placeholder for adequate institutional arrangements, could begin with a focus on closing knowledge gaps by collecting, sharing and managing relevant information on displacement. It could then expand its work to build Parties’ own capacities to address displacement, facilitate voluntary migration, and encourage participatory and dignified planned relocation as a last resort. The Facility could also provide a space to convene and collaborate between UN agencies, as well as international and regional organizations, governmental initiatives and civil society concerned with climate-related displacement and migration.

Some remain concerned that this facility would be duplicating activities of other UN agencies, such as the UN Refugee Agency and the International Organization for Migration. However, these agencies strongly advocate that this is not a duplication at all. They call for the creation of a Facility to reinforce and sustain their work.

As highlighted by the the Nansen Initiative Protection Agenda, endorsed by 110 Governments this past October in Geneva, there remain many gaps. These include legal protection, institutional arrangements and knowledge and data collection.

ECO noticed that a small but potentially mighty paragraph that would scale back international public financial support for high-carbon fossil fuels has taken a beating.

Prior to being discussed behind closed doors yesterday, Article 6, paragraph 7 aimed to ensure international public finance was not used to fuel (pun intended) the very problem this entire agreement is trying to solve: the climate crisis. In the new text just released, it is clear that what is now Article 6, paragraph 4, option 3, fell victim to Parties pandering to the interests of big oil, coal and gas.

This text is not about dictating domestic development choices: it is the no-brainer that says that all-too-scarce international public financing should be used to solve the problem, not make it worse. Countries have just a couple of days left to make sure that big polluters don’t leave their dirty fingerprints all over this deal. It is high time to follow the advice on the stylish scarves that many seem to be sporting and #StopFundingFossils.

And planes, too! ECO is thrilled that Parties are coming around to a target of 1.5°C. But how would we all feel if we got back home and realized—oops!—we left out two huge emitters? International aviation and shipping emissions are equivalent to the carbon emissions of the UK and Germany, are not included in national targets. These emissions are expected to grow up to 270% by 2050. Leaving them out of the agreement would be letting efforts to keep temperature rise under 1.5°C just float on by.

ICAO and IMO are the right UN agencies to regulate these sectors. But, they need to step up their ambition quickly. They can, and must, tackle bunker emissions  in a way that accommodates equally both differentiation and the principles of non-discrimination under which these agencies operate.

New Zealand will devote NZ$20 million to research methods for reducing its agricultural emissions over the next four years. Prime Minister John Key announced this news last Monday at COP21. Agriculture accounts for half of the country’s total emissions.

What the Prime Minister failed to mention was that, earlier this year, AgResearch cut a net 56 jobs, including researchers in the area of greenhouse gas emissions. AgResearch is the agricultural research institute owned and funded by the government. This funding shortfall was approximately NZD$5 million in 2015. Over four years this would – wait for it – add up to NZD$20 million.

At the time those cuts were made, the Science and Innovation Minister was quoted as saying, ‘AgResearch has seen significant change in its areas of research that people value, and what I mean by people I mean the sector that pays for their research…So some areas that were perhaps very important 10 or 15 years ago have less support these days’. Here’s hoping the money is applied in time to reemploy New Zealand’s researchers before the country falls even further behind in mitigating its greenhouse gases.

John Key wants to look like a climate champ, but simply moving money around isn’t going to cut it.

As the president of the Sami parliament of Norway, Aili Keskitalo, spoke at the High Level Segment of COP, ECO was dismayed to learn that the Norwegian Environmental Agency just doomed a world famous fjord by approving the annual dumping of two million tons of waste from a planned copper mine in the Repparfjord. This mine will open in Sapmi, the region of Norway’s indigenous people. Both the Sami parliament and environmental organisations are fighting the plans, as the mining waste will be deposited in spawning waters of cod and other fish stocks crucial to coastal fisheries.

Much ink has already been spilled in ECO about Norway and its lack of support for human rights in the text. ECO notices an unsettling echo of Norway’s harmful attitude on the international stage in its domestic treatment of indigenous communities.

Yet more harm may be done from the waste dumping at Repparfjord. Pollution from the copper mine will breach allowed limits for heavy metals and constitute a toxic cocktail of various contaminants. Microscopic particles spreading through the water will also harm the threatened Atlantic salmon in what is classified as a ‘National Salmon Fjord’.

Many now argue that the Norwegian Environment Agency has abandoned its role as an environmental regulator.

Prevention is better than cure when it comes to illness. So, it is crucial to scale up on climate change adaptation to reduce its harm.

As negotiations gain speed, ECO is not at the operating table, but would like to share some thoughts on key remaining topics. ECO is happy to see that some brackets were removed before the text was sent to the ministers, but many vital issues remain. ECO believes in the value of a global adaptation goal that includes the vision of protecting people, livelihoods and ecosystems.

The Paris Agreement should also build up a meaningful link between mitigation efforts and required adaptation actions. ECO is concerned that the relevant language is bracketed. It’s a common sense relationship: less mitigation equals more climate change and higher adaptation needs.

ECO is impressed that many countries have submitted an INDC component on adaptation. Building on this, Parties should agree that every country needs to submit some form of adaptation communication, with flexibility on the ‘how’. ECO’s view is that there is a benefit in a regular communication of planned adaptation actions, in conjunction with mitigation cycles, as is one option in the text.

Every country should  promote the integration of climate risks into policies and planning, based on the agreement in the SDGs.

The Adaptation Fund (AF) is a UNFCCC success story: more than 50 adaptation projects are currently underway in Latin America, Africa and Asia, providing support to vulnerable people.

However, the AF operates under a high level of uncertainty. While more and more countries put forward project ideas—the last board meeting has seen an unprecedented amount of proposals—the AF will run out of money as early as 2016 with the resources available today.

Countries need to follow Sweden’s pledge of US$17.5 million and help the AF to meet its fundraising target of $100 million in 2015.

While cash is required in the short term, countries also need to define a long-term perspective. Strengthening the AF in Paris would be a big help for supporting vulnerable people and countries. It would also safeguard one of its unique features—its ability to multilaterally harness alternative sources of finance for developing countries—as an option for the future.