ECO Newsletter

The final days of Bonn have seen hundreds of thousands of people issue a resounding call to Parties to protect climate policymaking from the undue influence of the globe’s biggest polluters. ECO, too, wants it heard loud and clear: kick big polluters out of climate policy.

A broad coalition of individuals and NGOs delivered a petition with approximately 250,000 signatures to Parties through the Secretariat yesterday. ECO hopes that this call will be heard, and it will run interference with the fossil fuel industry’s aggressive lobbying at the national level, and bankrolling international meetings, including the climate COPs. The very industry driving the problem cannot be trusted to help find the solution.

Parties also need to protect COP21 from dirty energy sponsorship. As you might remember, industry co-option of treaty meetings is a growing problem. We were all there in Warsaw for COP19, where corporations with a direct conflict of interest in the treaty’s success sponsored the talks. This cannot happen in Paris when so much is at stake. Corporations such as EDF and Engie, with ties to coal and fracking, are now listed as lead sponsors, despite contributing close to 50% of France’s emissions. If this process wants to be credible, it needs to reject dirty energy sponsorship.
... Read more ...

It’s hard to believe but, yes, it’s been nearly 15 years since Parties set up the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) to support LDCs in identifying «urgent and immediate» adaptation projects by preparing National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs). Yes, that’s the same fund that the Global Environment Facility (GEF) managed with voluntary contributions from developed countries.

Here’s the good part of this story: all 48 LDCs have completed their NAPAs and most have started implementing priority adaptation projects with LDCF funding. So far the LDCF has received nearly 900 million USD. However, during last week’s GEF Council session, it emerged that there are 29 «urgent and immediate» projects approved and ready to be implemented that require around 200 million USD in total — but there is no money left in the LDCF.

Even more concerning, there were no contributions offered for the LDCF during this session.  Maybe it was just an “oversight” by developed countries, so ECO trusts the money for these urgent and immediate adaptation projects will be forthcoming soon.

While the LDCF is busy fulfilling its mandate to fund urgent LDC adaptation actions, let’s not forget that there are various options to address further adaptation funding for LDCs in the future.
... Read more ...

It’s always good when two global leaders talk up a strong climate deal. This week, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Ricardo Lagos, the former Presidents of Brazil and Chile respectively, urged the European Union and the Community of Latin American and the Caribbean States (CELAC) to form a high-ambition coalition on climate at their meeting in Brussels. But perhaps Europe is not paying enough attention to its compañeros across the Atlantic.

If the EU is in need of a hearing aid, here’s what’s on the table: CELAC wants a Paris agreement to treat adaptation and mitigation equally, and they want assurances on how $100 billion in climate finance per year will be mobilised by 2020. Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) countries are also keen for Europe to increase technology transfer and capacity-building efforts, as well as advancing progress on the Loss and Damage Mechanism before Paris.

Therefore, Europe should reaffirm that it will enhance its support of LAC countries’ climate actions. This support should extend beyond mitigation actions. Europe must prove that it takes climate risk and adaptation seriously, especially as LAC countries are very concerned about climate impacts.

If Europe listens well to LAC, it is sure to have friends when it arrives in Paris.
... Read more ...

The UNFCCC is not the only multilateral process considering climate protections this year. The Montreal Protocol (MOP) is negotiating over four separate proposals to phase down HFCs, which are powerful greenhouse gases. Phasing down HFC production and consumption under the Montreal Protocol now enjoys the support of the vast majority of countries, both developed and developing.

Support from nearly all countries makes an HFC agreement possible this November – something that seemed beyond reach only a year ago. The two treaty regimes can co-exist nicely.  Countries can curb HFC production and consumption under the MOP while continuing to account for their HFC emissions under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.

However, seemingly out of nowhere, Saudi Arabia has emerged as a new blocker, taking the baton from those who previously held it.

It seems weird that Saudi Arabia is obstructing, knowing that from their perspective phasing down HFCs should help free up little more carbon space for their more valuable sources of GHGs (‘hint hint’). Why is Saudi Arabia working against its own national and global interest, and also harming its closest ally, the UAE, the host of the MOP this year in November?

Saudi Arabia says its concern is that alternative coolants may not be as viable in regions with high temperatures, such as the Middle East.
... Read more ...

After 11 days of negotiations here in Bonn, Parties are longing for a change of scenery, and we have just what you need: the third Financing for Development (FfD) Conference will take place in Addis Ababa from July 13 – 16.

So what the relevance is of the FfD to the work on the road to Paris? Here are some key points:

FfD will set the tone for international ambition on key issues around sustainable development, including climate action. In other words, a good outcome from FfD will help advance efforts in the UNFCCC.

The FfD is an opportunity to integrate climate change objectives into all flows of development finance, or as the buzz term of the season puts it, ‘climate proof’ this funding. ECO endorses this as long as specific climate finance continues to be delivered and scaled up on top of climate proofed development finance.

The Conference outcomes will play a supporting role in some of the key issues associated with climate action. For example, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, increasing the profile of innovative sources of finance, exploring private sector accountability, designing measuring, reporting and verifying mechanisms for finance, and ‘shifting the trillions’.

The FfD Conference is a prime opportunity for both finance ministers and Heads of State to demonstrate strong global solidarity in the fight against poverty, inequality and climate change. So, log 13-16 July  in your diaries, it’s an event not be missed.

ECO would like to remind developed countries that an agreement to keep global warming below 1.5°C is a must, so that devastating climate impacts can be largely avoided. So far, the average global temperature has risen by about 0.8°C–and we are already witnessing unprecedented damages!

In just the last 5 years, thousands have died and millions more have been affected by unprecedented extreme weather events, such as drought in the Eastern Horn of Africa and the Sahel region; Hurricane Sandy in the USA; typhoons in the Philippines (such as Haiyan); Cyclone Pam in Vanuatu; and recent floods and heat waves in India.

Having seen the devastation from 0.8°C warming so far, ECO wonders: Can we even bear nearly double the current temperature rise in a 1.5°C world?

In reality, the impacts of increasing temperatures will not be linear. The impacts in a 1.5°C world will be far worse than double the intensity of those that we are currently experiencing. What will happen at 2, 3 or 4°C is unimaginable. In light of this, ECO would like to reiterate three fundamental points as we finalise the climate deal:

1. Lags in climate systems

Scientists say that even after CO2 and other greenhouse gases stabilise, surface air temperatures and sea levels are projected to continue rising for another century or more.
... Read more ...

Following the severe social and physical damages caused by Typhoon Haiyan, the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) on loss and damage was established at COP19. ECO appreciated last year’s work by the Initial Executive Committee of the WIM on a two-year work plan (2015/2016), which was eventually approved by COP20.

However, though the loss and damage negotiations have moved forward, the operationalisation of the WIM has not taken place yet. Six months into the year, and its Executive Committee still has not been formed, due to a lack of nominations from Annex I countries. Negotiators must not leave this session without a clear sense of when the WIM will actually start its work, as its work plan–despite limitations–clearly acknowledges some of the emerging and broad challenges of loss and damage.

An urgent task is to decide upon activities to enhance understanding of how loss and damage affects particularly vulnerable segments of the population and ecosystem, and what can be done about it. The WIM should also take up work related to the impacts of loss and damage on social protection systems. ECO hopes that this come up with clear recommendations to ensure their functioning in a future containing increasingly intense disasters.

Addressing data and knowledge gaps regarding slow-onset events is equally important.
... Read more ...

Most of the work on loss and damage has focused on estimating the economic costs of climate change impacts, such as the US$50 billion worth of losses and damages from Hurricane Sandy in the USA.

In a similar fashion, non-economic loss and damage has also been converted into market-based economic damage using contingent valuation and other techniques. These measurement efforts undermine the real value of certain items and are inherently problematic. It is important to recognise that not all loss and damage can, or even should, be converted to economic values alone.

ECO agrees with environmental economists that some loss and damage cannot be measured in numbers. Loss of human lives, species, cultural practices, symbols and ecosystems are irreconcilable no matter how much money is spent. Such loses would undermine the ability of communities to respond to stresses. Attempting to just pay for their loss is not a sustainable way to deal with climate change. Loss and damage goes beyond adaptation, but it also isn’t just a way to unburden offenders of their crime. A civilised world would not allow the irrecoverable loss of invaluable lives, species and ecosystems.

Here’s some real talk: the price of climate change-induced loss and damage is already being felt in developing countries. When Cyclone Pam damaged or destroyed 80% of structures in Vanuatu, and tore through the neighbouring Pacific Islands of Tuvalu and Kiribati—loss and damage was experienced across the whole economy. Damage was inflicted upon people’s homes, offices and schools. Locals lost most of their crops and were left with only a few weeks worth of food supplies.

The costs of loss and damage are projected to be huge. The recent UNEP/AMCEN report Africa’s Adaptation Gap 2 estimates that loss and damage will cost twice as much as adaptation across Africa. Yes, delegates, you read that right–twice as much! The loss and damage finance gap is, and will be, huge. We will need many sources of finance to fill it. This will include public finance from treasuries, contributions from financial transaction taxes, transport fuel levies, emissions trading scheme levies and much more.

ECO is particularly fond of a new source of finance that would hit those responsible for causing the climate loss and damage costs—the fossil fuel industry. A global fossil fuel extraction levy, applied at the ridiculously low price of US$2 a tonne of CO2e, could easily generate $50 billion a year.
... Read more ...