ECO Newsletter

Coming to Warsaw, ECO was feeling somewhat optimistic. Fresh statistics suggested that global CO2 emissions growth has slowed a bit, which could be the first sign of an approaching emissions peak. In September, China announced took a major positive step — a direction change in its coal policy. Three key industrial provinces must peak and decline coal consumption by 2017 and ban new dirty coal plants.
But then came the damaging announcements by Australia and Japan, whose shifts are in the negative direction.

After a week like this, we certainly don’t need more bad news.  But according to rumours, the European Commission is preparing a proposal for a 2030 climate target of a meagre 40% reduction against 1990 levels.
The EU has long been seen as setting a global high water mark on ambition.  Yet now it is undermining its own objective to keep global temperature below 2°C.

Yes, 40% seems like a lot – so let’s explain what this means.  A 40% target for 2030 would in practice bring the EU on a pathway towards real emission cuts of merely 33% by 2030 due to the amount of surplus emission allowances in the system.  Indeed, in order to accommodate the huge oversupply of surplus pollution permits in the EU’s carbon market, any 2030 target would need to be 7% stricter.
... Read more ...

There is much on the Warsaw agenda for enhancing the current MRV system from Cancun as well as enabling the ex ante equity and adequacy review of post-2020 targets.

But the lack of progress regarding the review guidelines for developed country biennial reports and developing country International Consultation and Analysis (ICA) reports is disheartening. In both cases, the importance of a strong technical assessment is crucial, though the purposes are different.

For developed countries, expert review should be able to assess progress on fulfilling commitments as well as identifying potential problems.

At the same time, for many developing countries, the new biennial update reports and the process to analyse them were significant improvements on previous reporting efforts, especially since it was the first time they agreed to be subject to some sort of scrutiny.

However no one expects these reports will be perfect from the beginning. It would be very beneficial for the technical expert teams to recommend further improvement in these reports – after all, they are called ‘experts’.

Looking forward to the post-2020 tabling and assessment of commitments, Warsaw needs to set up a clear process to generate the most ambitious and fair offers by the time we reach our final destination in Paris.
... Read more ...

On Wednesday the second Structured Expert Dialogue of the 2013-2015 review began to assess overall progress towards achieving the long-term global goal, including the implementation of commitments under the Convention.

The IPCC authors conclude that there is a 1000 Gt carbon budget for humankind from the starting point of the fossil fuel era. Within that budget there is a 66% likelihood of staying below 2 degrees.

We have already used half of that budget and, taking into account other greenhouse gases, only 270 Gt can still be emitted to remain within the safe lines.  That’s a shockingly small carbon budget to stay with a climate that is relatively safe – and even then substantial impacts will still occur.

Most numbers from the IPCC are associated with uncertainties. From a risk assessment perspective (or common sense, depending on how formal you want to be), higher uncertainty requires a lower carbon budget. So remember, even a 66% likelihood means a one-third chance of going beyond 2 degrees.

Furthermore, action on short-lived forcers like methane cannot replace or ‘buy time’  on long-lived greenhouse gases, especially CO2.  We need substantial reductions of them all.

However, while the Structured Expert Dialogue did not formally draw conclusions, it is clear that the overall progress made so far towards achieving the long-term global goal is small and far less than what is necessary.
... Read more ...

The time is now for gender equality in the climate change negotiations.  And you ask why? — doesn’t climate change affect us all?

A common sense human perspective on climate change and its solutions needs to uphold the rights and respond to the diverse needs of the entire population. Gender is one of the foremost social categories in determining roles, experiences and perspectives in human society. If climate policies and solutions are to meet the needs of women and men, girls and boys, equally – and be effective – policy makers must understand these gendered dynamics.

It took 19 years for common sense to land on the agenda of the UNFCCC, but here it is.  The dynamic discussions on gender equality and climate change in the SBI, during both Tuesday’s workshop and Wednesday’s SBI contact group on the draft conclusions, highlighted great strides in recognizing the human face of climate change in this process.  Yes, there is progress in a sea of stagnation.

Now, Parties have an opportunity to take robust and innovative action towards the goal of gender-responsive climate policy, or to put it another way, policy that meets the needs of all individuals equally.

Recommendations are being tabled to incorporate gender guidelines into ongoing and existing initiatives, programmes and processes under the UNFCCC; tools for accountability to and reporting on gender responsive climate actions; calls for innovative funding, capacity building and networking to strengthen women as decision-makers in this process; and recommendations to further education and training on how to understand climate policy through a gender lens.

During the CDM workshop held this past June, Parties heard firsthand testimony from Weni Bagama, who spoke out passionately about the impacts of the Barro Blanco CDM project — a 29 MW hydroelectric dam currently under construction on the Ngäbe indigenous territories in Panama.

Weni described how the company failed to adequately consult the affected communities, a clear violation of CDM rules and international human rights standards. Despite concerns raised regarding consultation and other human rights abuses during the validation process, the CDM executive board approved the project in January 2011.

Since then, James Anaya, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, visited the affected communities to investigate the human rights abuses associated with the hydro project. In his concluding statement, the Special Rapporteur highlighted the Barro Blanco case, and clearly articulated the international human rights obligations that should apply. He further stated that this case is emblematic of the many development projects that are threatening the lives and livelihoods of indigenous peoples in Panama.

Barro Blanco does not stand alone.  It is one of many projects that illustrate how the CDM has failed to ensure that projects are designed, implemented and monitored in a manner that protects human rights.
... Read more ...

The First Place Fossil again goes to Australia. Withdrawing from climate action and finance for developing countries is already like a slap in the face of those suffering from the impacts of climate change. Simply expressing solidarity with the Philippines, as they did on Wednesday in the loss and damage negotiations, is not sufficient to repair the damage Australia caused.

Even worse, in the same negotiations, Australia gave a gold star performance in obtrusiveness.  Their first point was to attach conditions and list the things Australia would not broach talking about. This included objecting to rehabilitation funds – even though this is an area of work already agreed to last year.

Then Australia objected to provisions of insurance in the Convention process – even though insurance is indeed mentioned in the Convention. They insisted that the work programme on loss and damage should be ended when institutional arrangements are agreed, although many Parties have highlighted the usefulness of past work programme activities in their submissions, and a substantial discussion on the future activities has yet to happen.

Happily in contrast to Australia – the majority of other countries showed a constructive spirit. However, Japan gets a dishonorable mention for supporting Australia’s obstructive and belligerent stance.