ECO Newsletter

It is always heartening when language in the Geneva text relates directly to issues being faced by communities in the real world. That is exactly the case with the references to compensation and a climate displacement facility. Unfortunately, this language is also deeply controversial: any question of liability for harm in other parts of the world sends developed countries – despite having caused the main problem – running for cover.

The science can’t be hidden, though. It is clear that cumulative emissions (mostly from developed countries) are the cause of the loss and damage that people across the developing world are facing today.

International law is equally clear – it is a fundamental legal principle, confirmed by the International Court of Justice, that states should not cause harm outside their jurisdiction and should respect the environment of other states and areas beyond their frontiers. The UNFCCC requires developed countries to take the lead in reducing their greenhouse emissions to a level which prevents dangerous climate change. Their failure to do this raises legal consequences because developing countries now face climate consequences that can’t be adapted to.

Notwithstanding the fact that keeping global warming below 1.5°C will require action by all Parties.
... Read more ...

ECO has heard whispers that adaptation and loss and damage belong to the same family. Here it is, for the public record: loss and damage to property, territory, ecosystems, food production, lives and livelihoods are effects that would not have happened without climate change. It is something that cannot be truly adapted to.

Even if we manage to stay below 1.5°C, and invest heavily in adaptation, we are not and will not be able to adapt to all climate change impacts. How do you adapt if your island is bound to disappear under the rising sea before the end of the century? Or if you are set to experience category 5 cyclones every year? Adaptation in these cases means only coping with the situation and suffering losses along the way. Adaptation has its limits.

Affecting over 160,000 people, Cyclone Pam is a sad but telling example of what the future could bring. Warmer average ocean temperatures likely increased Cyclone Pam’s strength and ferocity.

ECO reminds you that there is only one scenario to really reduce anticipated loss and damage: high mitigation and high adaptation. We also need to face reality and prepare to compensate for the loss and damage that the most vulnerable people are already facing, and will increasingly face, regardless of the climate scenario we adopt.
... Read more ...

The last few days have seen submissions from blocs for COP decisions on pre-2020 mitigation action (WS2). ECO’s not going to pretend: it’s making our hearts race. The blocs may not agree on everything in WS2, but they do agree on its importance. The Durban mandate, which launched the pre-2020 mitigation workstream, called for actions and maximum efforts by all parties.

The importance of action and effort by all Parties cannot be stressed enough. Action is important not only because climate change is such an enormous problem, but also because the co-benefits of climate action are also equally big. This is not to say that developing countries are meant to go it alone, however.

Action will not happen without finance. In reading the submissions, ECO noticed a curious trend. Parties that have finance commitments were also the Parties that didn’t once mention finance in their submissions at all. Coincidence? ECO thinks not.

Here is a blunt reminder: in workstream 2 and the pre-2020 period, climate finance is as crucial as it is elsewhere. The Technical Examination Process (TEP) has the potential to lead the on-the-ground implementation of some truly paradigm-shifting initiatives. But while developed and developing countries are both supposed to be involved with these initiatives, efforts in developing countries were always supposed to be supported by climate finance from the developed world.

Halfway through its COP presidency, Peru continues to set a good example with a draft INDC that takes its contribution to safe climate seriously.

With per capita emissions above the global average, Peru also has acute vulnerability to extreme climatic events, which once again shows why including adaptation measures in INDCs is essential.

Peru plans to reduce emissions by 31% by 2030 compared to “business as usual” emissions through 58 potential mitigation measures – although that unfortunately includes switching from coal to natural gas. Gas isn’t as bad as coal, but nowhere near as good as renewable energy in the short and long term.

Peru is open to comments until July 17, and Peruvian civil society groups are counting on turning the public consultation into a meaningful exercise. It needs to be transparent, inclusive, participatory and well-managed.

The COP20 president, Manuel Pulgar Vidal, has been vigorously pushing for a bold INDC. The creation of a ministerial commission looks like a promising step. But unless other ministries and Peru’s President commit to this venture, the chances of success diminish. Despite voluntary targets for 2020, the government has made little progress. Bold goals will need bold political backing and the necessary resources.

It’ll be some time before ECO forgets the day the Secretariat decided to announce a fee for side events. That was the day money almost became an excuse to keep civil society outside of the negotiations process.

This week saw the Secretariat present their internal budget scenarios with both a 0% and 5% increase. In the 0% increase scenario, ramifications include a reduction of “opportunities for observer engagement, including the number of side events, exhibits, registrations, accreditations and alternative modes of presentation”. The 0% increase scenario also prevents the fulfilment of important initiatives such as the Lima Work Programme on Gender.

These potential negative implications that come with budget cuts must be reviewed by an external body. The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ)—which has evaluated programme budgets for UN peacekeeping missions—is one potential option.

ECO is, with good reason, concerned about any decision that may diminish civil society participation and programme effectiveness.

ECO is looking forward to the fight for the microphone over coming months as countries trumpet their exciting plans. All Parties are planning on coming to Paris with robust and ambitious new climate policies, right? After all, no one wants to show up empty handed to the party of the year!

While many questions will be asked about these shiny new announcements, like is it really new, is it really ambitious, or is it just playing tricky games with base years and accounting? Here’s one easy question though: have you stopped funding the problem and finally put an end to those pesky fossil fuel subsidies?

Especially to our climate leaders in the G7 (and don’t worry, we’ll still bug the laggards too): you have already promised to stop propping up big oil, coal and gas. As members of the G20 nations, you won’t have trouble finding better ways to invest the current US$88 billion spent each year on fossil fuel exploration subsidies alone.

When it’s your country’s turn to speak in Paris, know that whatever you say will be much more meaningful if you stop digging the hole you claim to be trying to climb out of. ECO calls on all of you to #StopFundingFossils!

There’s a lot of G7 analysis out there, but you read it here first: the end of fossil fuels is on the global agenda. To stand a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C, we need to get off fossil fuels, rapidly and completely.

Increasingly, this reality is being understood by governments and investors—and now, the leaders of the world’s largest industrialised countries. The just-concluded G7 has put the end of fossil fuels on the global agenda, calling for decarbonisation over the course of this century.

But when, exactly? There are those who think we can wait until the end of the century, but that would drive the world into an unprecedented humanitarian and ecological disaster. Rather, the answer is to speed up the just transition to globally phasing out fossil fuel emissions and phasing-in 100% renewable energy by 2050. A strong long-term goal in the Paris Agreement must reflect this.

Beyond the suggested global decarbonisation goal, the G7 has also agreed to do their share, transforming their own energy sectors by 2050. (And this means only 100% renewable energy, right?) They also plan to support initiatives promoting renewable energy in developing countries, particularly in Africa.

So ECO congratulates the G7 on their newfound long term ambition.
... Read more ...

At the conclusion of the G7, leaders of the world’s richest countries said they “will continue our efforts to provide and mobilise increased finance, from public and private sources, and to demonstrate that we and others are well on our way to meet the US$100 billion goal”.

“Continuing efforts to provide and mobilise increased finance” is about maintaining current levels of finance, which the G7 leaders claim are “already flowing at higher levels”. So far so good, no backsliding. But where is the much-needed commitment to further increase finance beyond current levels?

We are nowhere near Chancellor Merkel’s commitment to double Germany’s climate finance contribution by 2020. Other rich countries should be following suit well ahead of Paris with clear quantified commitments to scale up public finance, especially for adaptation, while avoiding confusing language or accounting tricks. This is key to success in Paris.

Next the G7 claim that we are “well on our way to meet the $100bn goal” warrants a closer look.

OECD-DAC estimates that public climate finance flows were $37bn in 2013. There are two reasons why this number is too high.

First, it includes bilateral aid contributions where climate change is not just a “principal” but a “significant” objective.
... Read more ...

Yesterday’s Joint Contact Group (JCG) on the 2013-2015 review was like reliving a bad dream. Saudi Arabia used procedural arguments to prevent progress towards the drafting of a COP decision building on the robust climate science contained in the Structured Expert Dialogue (SED). That’s backsliding to the dark ages of the 1990, Saudi Arabia!

It was also disappointing to witness China and India siding with the Kingdom rather than standing with countries where acting on the messages of the SED is a matter of survival. All this prevented the JCG from recommending appropriate action on the basis of the key messages highlighted throughout the SED.

As a reminder, those messages are: we are not on track to a “below 2°C path”, 2°C warming would be dangerous, and keeping warming to 1.5°C would avoid many disastrous impacts.

Rather than wasting more negotiating hours with delaying tactics, Parties should consider what their mitigation policies must be if they respond adequately.