ECO Newsletter

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.

ECO thinks there is quite enough to be dealing with at the moment without adding in non-things. So, we are getting tired of increasingly hearing that the US is pushing for specific language excluding liability and compensation behind the scenes, making it easy for other countries that want the same to play the silent partner.

Let’s rewind a bit. In a loss and damage special edition of ECO last June, we supported LDC’s calls for compensation language in the text. However, in a laudable response to concerns expressed by the US and other developed countries about this language—and in a powerful display of unity—the G77 agreed to remove this language from the text.

That really should have been the end of the story. Rather than seeing it as the constructive bridging proposal that it was, the EU stonewalled; others stayed silent, while the US, having wanted to exclude the text entirely, is now pushing for specific language in the text to exclude compensation and liability.

Are there legal reasons to do this? ECO says no. The lack of reference to compensation in both the bridging proposal and compilation text means, well, no reference to compensation. The language, with its talk of exploration and approaches, is far from anything that could be relied on to establish liability on a legal basis.

ECO understands that the rich, polluting countries are not keen to put money on the table to help vulnerable, developing countries affected by climate change. ECO heard of a very attractive mechanism that could lower their bill–let the industry most responsible for climate change pay for the damage their product is causing.

Fossil fuels are responsible for roughly 70% of emissions. Just two of the biggest fossil fuel companies–Chevron and ExxonMobil–made US$50 billion in profit last year.  Coincidentally, that’s probably how much loss and damage LDCs are facing right now.

Collectively, all vulnerable countries face $100 billion in loss and damage, the same as the annual profits of the top 13 fossil fuel companies. On top of these obscene profits, Chevron is planning to spend $35 billion exploring for new, completely unnecessary sources of fossil fuels.

Idea: make the fossil fuel industry pay a levy into the loss and damage mechanism. Problem solved.

You won’t solve climate change without forests. But, amid all the potential to address climate change from the land, we need to watch our step.

Land is not only about forests and mitigation. It’s where food is grown, homes are built, cultures are rooted, water cycles are nurtured, and where biodiversity works its magic. ECO takes a deep, calming breath, visualises waterfalls, diverse forests and birdsong. Ahh…

Among exciting whispers of growing climate ambition, ECO wants to make sure that the lovely land that we all rely on is not accidentally trampled on in the rush to stay below 1.5°C. Climate approaches that would leave communities landless and nations hungry–for example by afforesting over hundreds of millions of hectares of African farmland–would undermine the purpose of the whole UNFCCC.

ECO reminds Parties that we need to watch our step when it comes to land.  There hasn’t been much time this week to talk about this properly.

Fortunately, lots of good work on land has been done in other relevant international processes. We need a mandate in the decision text to develop principles and establish guidelines to ensure that actions in the land sector are in line with all relevant obligations, rights and best practices, and that mitigation supports, rather than undermines, key obligations and social protections.