ECO Newsletter

Today will see Switzerland, the EU and Norway take the stage: we salute you for being the first ones to submit your INDCs, and for having the guts to step up to this Q&A session.

Switzerland

Switzerland was the first country to submit an INDC. It plans to reduce emissions by 50% from 1990 levels by 2030, with 30% to be achieved domestically, and the rest through offsets. It’s turned to the same approach with the long-term target, using offsets again. Which is far from clever! If the whole world needs to decarbonise by mid-century, what makes Switzerland think there will be enough offsets available? In any case, it really doesn’t make sense to spend your money on offsets. Those need to be bought year after year, it makes much more sense to just achieve your reductions independently which brings jobs and other co-benefits. And could you kindly specify the amount of offsets in tonnes, and clarify your responsibility to provide finance for mitigation and adaptation abroad? Then there’s the question of how non-forest land emissions can be accounted as zero…

EU

The EU a.k.a the first major economy to submit its INDC, where it commits to at least 40% emission reduction from 1990 levels by 2030.
... Read more ...

ECO imagines that negotiators have spent the night looking for gems in the Geneva text’s finance section in order to prepare smart interventions for today’s informals. This will not have been in vain. The text contains everything needed to build a robust framework for the provision of financial support in the Paris agreement.

All countries should contribute their fair bit to shift financial flows, public and private, away from dirty fossil fuels and towards renewable energies and energy efficiency. And to be clear, developing countries will require support for this ‘shifting of the trillions’ exercise.

Another good idea found in the text involves periodically setting collective targets for the provision of this financial support. After all, if the Paris agreement is to include contribution/commitment cycles for mitigation, it makes a lot of sense to organise financial support around similar cycles. Separate targets would be set for mitigation and adaptation funding, not only because the nature of support required for each differs, but also to ensure that sufficient support is provided for adaptation, which has been terribly neglected up to now.

The text’s next promising piece is its emphasis on needs assessments. There are numerous references that support should meet developing countries’ needs.
... Read more ...

International shipping and aviation generates approximately 5% of global CO₂ emissions. Massive growth rates in carbon pollution are anticipated for both sectors (50-250% for shipping and 270% for aviation by 2050). Without strong mitigation action in these sectors, we may lose any chance of staying below the 2°C goal. Whilst almost all other sectors and countries are discussing their commitments to the effort to keep global warming below 2°C, international aviation and shipping’s commitments are nowhere to be seen. What ECO heard from the IMO in SBSTA today does not comfort us that either sector is acting ambitiously enough or fast enough.

International shipping is the only sector that does not even acknowledge the need for absolute emission reductions or have a process in place to agree on such a target. In fact, only last month, the IMO turned down a proposal by the Marshall Islands to begin such a process. Its review of this suggestion took just 90 minutes, even though the Marshall Islands has the third largest shipping registry in the world. The message on climate impacts from the Pacific Islands is a wakeup call for all—except for the IMO.

At least the aviation sector is in the process of developing a new market-based mechanism, with the aim of using offsets to limit its emissions to 2020 levels.
... Read more ...

ECO thanks Parties for recognising how important keeping facilitated sessions under the ADP open to observers is. We smiled when Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Nicaragua all took to the floor in support of a transparent process with no objections from any Party.

The rooms may not have enough seats and the non-pink-badge lines are long, but that’s why we get up in the morning: to see the text turn from its “original paragraph” into a “proposed consolidation”.

Transparency in the process is critical—we don’t want to miss this. When we started in Bonn, there were 10 days and 4232 lines that run across more than 89 pages. Observers are keen to offer our assistance and suggestions with the streamlining.

COP21 is approaching and the pressure of time is upon us to finalise the negotiating text and ensure the new agreement is legally binding, anchored within the requirements of science, and fair for everyone.

Here in Bonn, Parties have to advance discussion on the essentials while streamlining the unwieldy Geneva text. To help with this undertaking, here is ECO’s take on the issues that need to be advanced this session.

The Paris agreement will come into force in 2020 and to be successful, a foundation of trust, ambition and fairness is needed. This requires that governments—especially those of developed countries—implement their current pledges and increase their overall mitigation ambition. Ambitious action from sub-national actors is a step in the right direction, but concrete policies and actions from governments is key.

The good news is that there are several ways governments can act to close the gigatonne gap, including (but not limited to): a massive expansion of renewable energy, greatly improved energy efficiency, a shifting of subsidies from fossil fuels to renewables, sustainable agricultural practices and developing zero carbon infrastructures. ECO calls for governments to pay full and due consideration to all these options. Yes, all of them. So don’t procrastinate.

Additionally, ECO believes the technical examination process should continue to and beyond 2020. The Convention’s technology and finance bodies should prioritise mitigation action with sustainable development co-benefits.

To facilitate the switch towards low-carbon, climate resilient development, the provision of support to developing countries remains a key item on the agenda. This support should come in the forms of technology and capacity building, and particularly through finance.

Developed countries need to live up to past promises, with developing countries rightly calling for a roadmap that specifies how the US$100 billion goal will be reached by 2020. Developed countries should respond to this call.

Even though it’s primarily developed countries that need to provide financial support after 2020, ECO wonders if countries with comparable levels of responsibility and capability are ready to join the club of contributors, too. For the sake of predictability, ECO supports proposals laid out in the Geneva text to periodically set collective finance targets, with separate targets for mitigation and adaptation, based on support requirements of developing countries.

ECO also feels that more emphasis should be placed on setting up a process to mobilise finance from alternative sources. The balance between mitigation and adaptation needs be to improved when allocating financial support, ensuring that adaptation finance corresponds to growing adaptation needs and is prioritised to the most vulnerable countries.

It is key that Parties agree on a vision for the future. ECO would like this vision to include phasing out fossil fuel emissions, as early as possible, and no later than 2050. This vision should also include phasing in 100% renewable energy with provisions of sustainable energy for all. Such a vision will help drive ambitious action among businesses, cities and other actors by offering a clearer sense of where the international community is headed on climate change.

ECO suggests that this vision should be captured in the negotiating text coming out at the end of this intersessional.

Paris should not lock in, unacceptably and dangerously, low ambition on mitigation and finance. Periodic upward revision of ambition based on changing circumstances should be built into the text to help close the pre–2020 emissions gap. The mechanism of ratcheting up would thus help reduce the risk of locking in irreversible emission trajectories.

This mechanism should not be limited to just mitigation but should be all encompassing. It should review the respective mitigation component of INDCs and their adequacy as well as fairness in relation to others. It should also allow for the regular setting and adjusting of targets for financial support. The mechanism should also look at potential areas where various UNFCCC institutions could play a much stronger facilitative role, for example the TEC and CTCN, particularly on adequacy-guided technological innovation.

There are disparate elements of this ratcheting up mechanism within the current draft text, and ECO asks Parties to flesh these elements out and afford the issue of ratcheting up the necessary negotiating time and priority.