Category: Previous Issues Articles

ECO is worried that the lengthy conversations about future contributors to climate finance may be helping developed countries avoid provisions today for more adequate and predictable support. Because, with time running out, ECO is fearful that Article 6 may be reduced to little more than a compromise on differentiation, a bit on ex-ante information (the draft para on this, let’s face it, is just re-hashing stuff from previous COP decisions), language on ex-post transparency, and perhaps a reference to the global stocktake.

This would be unfortunate. ECO has always seen Article 6 as one that an ambitious agreement needs in order to ensure future financial support for those countries that need it. Para 10 (option 2) does exactly that. The text suggests the periodic setting, review and adjustment of collective goals for the provision of support. ECO would love to see these few words, originally inserted by the G77 in October 2015, become the “operational core” of Article 6. Setting such collective goals, for instance, in 5-year cycles, perhaps backed by individual countries’ plans outlining how they will contribute, would greatly increase predictability. It would enhance adequacy, too, if such goals were linked to support requirements hinted at by developing countries in their current and future INDCs.
... Read more ...

ECO has no doubt that parties came to Paris with the best of intentions, and are keen to make sure we stay below 2°C. The party spoiler is that we’ve been warned that we are on a more-than-3°C track. And ECO knows that even 2°C is too much. How can we increase the stakes to avoid settling for a 3°C world? ECO believes that many Parties, especially developing countries, can and are willing to go further than their current INDCs. But many will need extra support to do that.

The facilitative dialogue described in Paragraph 20 of the COP Decision Text is a great place to start influencing current INDCs before 2020.

After developed countries increase their pre-2020 ambition, wouldn’t it be so much more interesting and effective if all countries come up with improved INDCs? Developed countries would lead the way with mitigation, and support developing countries by identifying additional conditional contributions they could make with such support. This would be the embryonic beginning of a 5-yearly process that links the gears of finance cycles closely to those of mitigation reviews. The finance cycles would set targets for support in 5-year intervals, while the mitigation review cycles would start with the revision of INDCs and need to happen as soon as possible before 2020.
... Read more ...

Delegates, as you must be aware by now (although some of you do show some need for additional lessons), loss and damage has a range of elements, including slow onset and extreme events, and financial and non-economic elements. And loss and damage will impact the poorest worst.

ECO welcomes insurance initiatives, such as the G7 initiative and boosters from the US, and acknowledges that regional insurance initiatives CCRIF and ARC have provided benefits to countries in those regions. However, we feel it imperative to remind Parties that insurance is not a cure for all loss and damage.

ECO dares you to try to take out insurance for desertification. Or for rising sea levels. No insurance in the world will cover you for such slow onset–and permanent– impacts. And for the extremely poor, private insurance is not an option. Who on earth would expect poor and vulnerable people to pay for dealing with all the climate impacts they didn’t cause?

ECO can already make some suggestions for elements to complement insurance: support to assess and plan for livelihood transitions, and address relocation needs to enable communities to rebuild, and not only physical infrastructure. In the face of relocation and loss of cultural and historical heritage, we should support post-disaster situations and reform humanitarian affairs to fit a world increasingly impacted by climate change.
... Read more ...

ECO has enjoyed hearing Parties’ visions for the new agreement. Especially those that highlighted the need for an agreement that supports human rights, including the rights of indigenous peoples. ECO loved hearing from Parties who said that a Paris agreement will only be successful if it’s rooted in gender equality and intergenerational equity, delivering food security, ecosystem integrity and a just transition with decent jobs.

The Philippines, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, and others (including Canada–welcome back!) recalled that human rights are at the core of the UNFCCC. These champions are working constructively to engage other countries and help sketch a positive shared vision for the future.

But ECO is disappointed that other countries do not want to be champions for human rights, and have expressed the opinion that human rights must remain non-operative. These non-champions refuse to recognise that an agreement neglecting human rights will struggle to garner the public support needed for its implementation.

ECO doesn’t want to believe that the EU is not strongly committed to the principles of human rights. But so far they have shied away from expressing unequivocal support for operative references. With many champions already standing for this issue, how long will it take for the EU to get its act together and choose to join the progressive countries?
... Read more ...

You’ve heard about the Fossil: even with HUGE emissions, ICAO and IMO’s contribution to COP21 are all recycled promises, delivered to the SBSTA.

The agreement must send ICAO and IMO a clear signal–they have to do their fair share to help us stay below the 1.5 or 2°C limit. They must increase their ambition, and deliver targets and measures that reduce emissions.

ICAO has launched a process to agree on a global market-based mechanism by next year. ECO will be watching to see if they get the job done, and include a mechanism to increase their ambition over time. It’s time for you to deliver. You’re the elephants in the room of these climate negotiations, and it’s time for your special status to end.

Not a Party, but two international organisations received the First Place Fossil today: the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

Put your tray tables up and close the port holes–IMO and ICAO have the same emissions as Japan and Germany combined! These emissions are currently exempt from inclusion in the Paris agreement and IMO and ICAO are doing their worst here to keep it that way. Yet without action, emissions from bunkers will grow 270% by 2050–sinking any chance of limiting temperature rise to safer levels.

International shipping and aircraft enjoy tax free fuel to the tune of over 60 billion bucks, yet don’t want to contribute to climate finance. No wonder the Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands called the IMO Secretary General ‘a danger to the planet’.

Coming in hot with today’s Second Place Fossil of the Day award is Turkey. While other developing nations like Mexico, the Philippines and the 43 members of the Climate Vulnerable Forum are bringing lots of positive leadership to the table, Turkey is making a goose of itself.

It’s pretty clear Turkey’s role at these discussions is aimed at extracting as much climate finance as possible. However, its INDC suggests that Turkey’s contribution is a 100% increase in greenhouse gas emissions (on 2013 levels)! You could call that money for nothing.

Did you know ECO can be in several rooms at the same time? Usually, ECO finds this quite helpful. Sometimes, though, it just leaves us thoroughly confused.

Take the case of the EU yesterday. In the contact group discussions, the EU stressed that Parties’ targets are not strong enough and ambition needs to be increased to respect the 2°C guardrail, suggesting textual changes accordingly. ECO could not agree more on this point. In a different room at exactly the same time, the CMP was meeting, and ECO heard other Parties stressing that targets are not strong enough and ambition needs to be increased to respect the 2°C guardrail. So Parties suggested a contact group to consider pre-2020 targets and guess what: the EU forcefully rejected this proposal, even though they supported increasing ambition just down the hall.

Can you please just make up your mind?

Now, the EU might be concerned that a CMP contact group would only look at commitments under the KP, meaning those of a limited number of developed countries and not all Parties. If that were the case, ECO would be even more confused. Why has ECO not heard any support from the EU for a process on accelerated implementation in the Workstream 2 negotiations, which would be exactly the forum to discuss this?
... Read more ...

Yesterday, the Climate Vulnerable Forum declaration sent a resounding call to make the 1.5°C target real. Today, we continue to focus on the reality of climate impacts. 

Developing countries are at risk of acute climate damage and enormous adaptation costs. The European Union has a major role to play in ensuring the Paris agreement is fair and strong on this crucial issue. The EU has traditionally been a bridge builder in the negotiations. The EU needs to put its engineering skills to work. The EU should work closely with CVF countries to build unity and improve climate ambition. 

That means ensuring the Paris outcome truly supports countries to be resilient to climate impacts. A long-term goal on adaptation and a commitment to setting 5-year quantified financial targets are core elements. Our global resilience depends on the long-term target we set, so decarbonisation by 2050, and rapidly increasing ambition until we get there, are essential. 

No one is immune to the impacts of climate change. EU citizens are already experiencing severe floods and heat waves. In the last 30 years, Europe has seen a 60% increase in extreme weather events. Even in the EU, the poorest suffer most. Global solidarity must start in Le Bourget–ECO is looking to the EU to bring us together.

If we don’t honestly and courageously deal with the differentiation challenge, we’re going to get a low ambition agreement. 

Self-differentiation is not good enough. Neither is political differentiation that reflects only power and negotiation games. In submitting their INDCs, developing countries have made the first move to progress beyond the Kyoto categories set out in 1992. Developed countries should acknowledge this shift and respond by constructively addressing differentiation in regard to mitigation, finance and transparency, to ensure an equitable agreement. 

We need a dynamic approach to differentiation that is sensitive to changing levels of development and capability. We need a robust agreement that equitably closes the mitigation and development gaps. That agreement must reflect specific differentiation in each element.