ECO Newsletter

The current agreement text removes all substantive commitments found in the original Geneva text, in favour of vague statements in optional paragraphs 7.4 and 7.5. The proposed decision text focuses primarily on technology needs assessments (TNAs). Only in paragraph 50 does it include specific commitments by developed countries on intellectual property (IPRs) and financial support.

History suggests that:

1) Substantive commitments are likely to be limited to TNAs unless developing countries hold strong on demands for finance and policies and measures to be included in the decision text;

2) Developing country demands for technology support and policies will be traded for institutional changes and the development of the technology framework .

The largest amount of technology text is aimed at the establishment of a new technology framework, to be developed by the new Intergovernmental Preparatory Committee (IPC) and adopted by the CMA at its first session. What this framework will entail remains unclear, but references to the 4/CP.7 framework suggest it will address: technology needs assessment, technology information, enabling environments, capacity building and mechanisms for technology transfer.
... Read more ...

Civil society has been left with little choice but to spend the last three days camping out in the basement of the conference centre. Despite the strong objections of the G77+China and Mexico—that’s 135 Parties out of a possible 195—the co-chairs have still barred observers from the negotiations. Rumours abound when all that can be done is wait for scraps of news, often delivered third- or fourth-hand.

The decision to exclude observers is troubling for three reasons.  First, the co-chair’s justification rewrites history. They stated that this is the process we agreed to in Doha. Some Parties repeated this due process argument. In reality, the SBI in Doha did not consider the participation of observers. The only relevant decision of the SBI actually encourages public participation; it recommends, at a minimum, that where no contact group exists, observers attend the first and last meetings during informals. It provides a floor for observer participation, not a ceiling.

Second, excluding civil society runs counter to the international principles and norms surrounding public participation.  The Convention itself provides that Parties: “shall … encourage the widest participation in this process, including that of non-governmental organisations.”  The negotiations leading to the adoption of the Nagoya Protocol, a supplement to the UNFCCC’s sister convention, the CBD, involved stakeholders through the entire process.
... Read more ...

The EU seems to be resorting to silence worryingly often, ECO wonders if this is a new negotiations tactic.

ECO first noticed this practice on Tuesday, when the EU failed to offer support to the G77+China group’s call for observers to be allowed in the spin-off groups.

Later in the week, the EU again fell silent over the Umbrella Group’s proposal to remove loss and damage as a standalone article in the agreement, which would leave already vulnerable countries even more vulnerable.

In Latin, there’s a saying: «Qui tacet consentit.» And for those not fluent, that’s: «silence gives consent«. But it’s not too late to find your voice, EU! Clearly state your support for loss and damage  and engage with Option 1. And say loudly and clearly, for all to hear, that observers should be allowed into the negotiations.

And remember, when you vocally stand up for what’s right, ECO won’t be silent in our praise.

September saw a relatively positive environment on loss and damage. It left ECO optimistic coming into this session that Parties would continue to work together constructively. Alas, this meeting has seen Parties move further apart with two diametrically opposite options, in the one text. Is this an all or nothing approach?

Option 1 offers comprehensive assurance to vulnerable countries that the world is taking this pressing issue seriously. Option 2, which deletes reference to L&D, is an absolutely unacceptable option to enter Paris with—and places the whole agreement at jeopardy. Parties should work today to remove option 2 and ensure the L&D is properly and adequately reflected in the agreement, so that it doesn’t damage the approach to Paris.

ECO hears rumours that Parties have discussed the possibility of having a Technical Examination Process (TEP) on adaptation, and we’d be delighted if this was true. After all, there are more gaps in these negotiations than even ECO can keep track of, from gigatonnes to dollars. Adaptation appears to be one of the victims of process, and seemingly never has its time to shine. Finance for adaptation remains grossly insufficient, and more action is needed to increase the resilience of vulnerable communities and ecosystems.

An adaptation TEP might just be the match made in heaven to ensure that there is  both a technical conversation with concrete recommendations and political commitment, which would in turn increase adaptation actions. It’s high time to  kickstart  action on the ground.

However, while Workstream 2 can be a great vehicle to get adaptation off the ground, it needs to be done in earnest. An adaptation TEP has a lot to offer to vulnerable people by engaging experts and catalysing action. But it must not become a topic that slows down the good pace of WS2 that has been evident this past week.  Nor can it become a delaying tactic for the remaining thorny bits, including the many pivotal mitigation elements.
... Read more ...

Transparency is good, as it is clarity because it can help countries direct policy and allocate resources appropriately. The co-chairs’ non-paper includes MRV and accounting-related provisions throughout, highlighting the cross-cutting nature of this issue and its overall relevance to the deal. This is vital for success. To increase ambition, the Paris agreement should set the status quo as an absolute minimum to ensure progression and prevent backsliding on rules and requirements. A common transparency framework must acknowledge different stages of development, capabilities and national circumstances and set the direction to improve over time. It is essential to create a balance between action and the need for adequate support, as well as support for capacity building and technology transfer.

ECO is always willing to help, and here are some proposed improvements:

Highlighting and strengthening the concept of independent, international review or verification in the text.

On the current information provision, the frequency and standard of reporting should not backslide.

The accounting rules need to be clearer, as they currently  lack even basic principles such as a ban on double counting.

The text should be clearer on methodologies for estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals, using data from the latest IPCC assessment report.
... Read more ...