ECO Newsletter

Three years after Parties established the Santiago Network as an answer to the WIM review (pointing to a lack of progress to deliver action on support for loss and damage) negotiators agreed on its terms of reference earlier this week. The Santiago Network is now ready to catalyze technical assistance for developing countries, enhancing capacity to address loss and damage.

As ECO could hear the applause of negotiators celebrating, we couldn’t help but wonder: have they talked to their colleagues recently? Because in the (closed) rooms right next to them, developed countries continue blocking the establishment of a Loss and Damage Finance Facility. Dear negotiations, don’t be mistaken. Just like there is no point in hanging venue maps without actual information or having water dispensers without actual water, there is no point in operationalizing a Santiago Network without actual support: new and additional money at scale to address loss and damage and a dedicated facility to channel these funds.
ECO can live with being lost and thirsty but we will not accept yet another COP outcome that ignores the loss of lives and livelihoods, and other human rights harms that loss and damage is causing all over the globe. COP27 will not deliver real solutions for people affected by the climate crisis without the establishment of a Loss and Damage Finance Facility.

Today ECO will tell you a story.

Eight billion people sitting together in one very big, but fragile boat that they all love very much. The boat – although still beautiful – was riddled with holes (GHG-emissions). Water had already flooded the living quarters of the people in the bottom deck. All the scientists on board warned in unison: “Unless the holes are repaired; the entire boat, everyone and everything on it will be wiped out!”. Unsurprisingly, the people on the boat were not happy about this.

Long, long ago (2015) in a faraway land (France) people from all parts of the boat gathered to find a solution. Once they agreed, they gave the solution a name: Article 2.

It contains three rules:

First rule (art 2.1a) is that everyone (according to CBRD-RC) will contribute to mending the holes in the boat (mitigation). Agreeing that all the holes must be mended before 2050 (art 4.1).

Second rule (art 2.1b) is that everyone would have to contribute to bailing the water already flooding the boat out (adaptation and L&D).

Third rule (art 2.1c) combining art 2.1c and 4.1, it simply says that everyone must stop drilling more f**ing holes in the boat!
... Read more ...

……and realised that on mitigation and finance, there were many changes in the text and new commitments by key nations emerging Thursday night.

Amazingly, the proposal by the Small Island state Tuvalu that all countries will phase out all fossil fuel production and consumption to achieve 100% renewable energy by mid-century was agreed to. It immediately tripled efforts to maintain the 1.5°C survival target domestically and for richer countries to enhance finance significantly to developing countries for mitigation and adaptation. Only Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, USA and certain EU members like Hungary and Poland looked grumpy. Any attempt to change this global convergence failed – the Egyptian President acted brilliantly and threatened to byline them all. And then an avalanche of new announcements by all the other nations unfolded in an unprecedented wave of solidarity.

Brazil promised a zero deforestation law for the Amazon next year, supported by Congo and Indonesia to do the same. China and India followed by legislating a full phase out law for fossil fuels domestically. Although they favoured 2060, that is a great move away from their initial long-term net-zero target of 2070. The EU, UK, Australia, Canada and even other fossil fuel exporters like Norway, Colombia, UAE, Kuwait and others agreed to stop any new fossil projects as, urged by the IEA.
... Read more ...

Monday’s ministerial dialogue on climate finance was a hoot (isn’t it always?!). India, Costa Rica, Vanuatu, Jordan, Bangladesh, and other LDCs demanded a more meaningful definition of climate finance be set forth. The current “definition” is more vague than a convention center venue map, allowing loans to be counted at their face value instead of their grant equivalence. This is misleading (almost as bad as the upside-down map outside zone C) and over-inflates figures for achieving the promised US$100 billion.

As discussions on the NCQG (that’s the New Collective Quantified Goal to you and me, folks) ramp up, let’s take a minute to reflect on how sturdy the $100 bn foundation really is. Developed countries are saying they reached $83 bn in 2020, of which $68 bn was public finance. Ministers from Nigeria and Uganda referred to the recent Oxfam report that estimates the “true value” to be between just $21 bn to $24 bn , a third of what developed countries are reporting.

To make matters worse, 70% of the public finance is in the form of loans that must be paid back. Even more concerning is the increase in non-concessional loans with higher interest rates. These financial instruments are MDBs’ guilty pleasure, representing a ‘have your cake and eat it too’ situation for them.
... Read more ...

After a first date, some advise waiting at least three days before you make your second move. ECO wonders if the presidency is as nervous as a love-dovey teenager about their cover decision text, and has confused dating and negotiation practice… This seems the most plausible explanation as to why there is still no actual draft cover decision text yet. ECO doesn’t recommend the three-day rule for dating, or the cover decision. Since we have all booked our travel back, this adventure equals more the timeframe of a holiday daliance — so don’t play games and let’s get going. ECO wishes the Egyptian presidency courage to make the next move. And as you make that move, dear Presidency, you want to be among the cool kids on the block: smoking fossil fuels is so 20th century, so urgently include some language on the much-needed equitable phase-out of ALL fossil fuels. You can do it!

And if you are reading this and the text has come out, Presidency, please follow up faster next time.

ECO has found many problems in the Article 6 texts, and wants to flag four in particular: (1) the risk of absence of any consequences from the 6.2 review, (2) the open door to mark all information as confidential, (3) troubling CDM carryover loopholes, and (4) the unhelpful ‘other A6.4ERs’ terminology.

First, the Article 6 review must have some teeth. It should review the cooperative approaches (not just the consistency of information), and should not be guided by vague principles like non-intrusive, non-punitive, no ‘political judgments’, etc. The review must have consequences. Recurring and/or unaddressed inconsistencies cannot simply be ignored. No Internationally Transferred Mitigation Options (ITMO) transfers should be allowed until the review is completed and inconsistencies are satisfactorily addressed.

ECO was somewhat reassured to see that Parties want to mandate further work to define how confidential information should be reviewed. This is an opportunity to limit the current ‘free for all’ approach that allows Parties to designate any information as confidential. ECO welcomes the proposal that Parties should justify why they deem information to be confidential, but is concerned that some language remains too loose. The section on confidentiality throws the door wide-open for countries to designate any information as confidential and, given the uncertainty about what will be discussed in the future work programme, this is a risk that ECO advises against taking.
... Read more ...

ECO wants to start by congratulating Parties on recognizing the flaws in the recommendations on removals and sending it back to the Supervisory Body. And ECO was pleased to see additional guidance, including related to human rights, but ECO doesn’t think you have the formula quite right for what the Supervisory Body will need. So here is a recipe to help it have more robust guidance to protect human rights, including the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and ecosystem integrity.

Add:
A reference to the rights of Indigenous Peoples alongside human rights.
Make sure recommendations are in line with International Law
Make sure recommendations are in line with the latest science
Task them with operationalizing the Independent Grievance Mechanism as part of their work in 2023

Stir into the Draft Text paragraphs on Guidance. Proof read. Approve. Give to the Supervisory Body.

WTF? This is the question that ECO has been asking for the past 50 years since it was born – where is the finance! While it started with asks for more development aid, these days it’s about financing efforts of vulnerable countries on mitigation and adaptation. And if you think it will get better, tell us – where is the US$100 billion that was committed in Copenhagen 2009 and Cancun 2010?

Guess what the latest excuse for this failure is? Rising inflation resulting from Russian aggression. Oh, please! Do you remember your past excuses? That you had budgeted already; or there are no bankable projects; or there is corruption; lack of governance, etc. But the honest and brutal truth is that they just do not want to collectively pay. At best, they propose to ‘rob from Peter to pay Paul’. Who said this money has to come from existing taxes or existing budgets from the rich nations?

ECO is not as shy as our finance ministers. And because ECO is also generous, here are our 4 novel finance options that the ministers can think about as they leave the COP in the next few days.

First, tax the super profits of the ~50 largest multilateral coal, oil, and gas companies.
... Read more ...

ECO is happy to share this part of our publication with the Indigenous Peoples Caucus(IPO) to help amplify their voice. This article reflects the views of the IPO.

Hózhó Nahasdlii. Hózhó Nahasdlii. Hózhó Nahasdlii. Hózhó Nahasdlii.
These words are often the end of Diné (Navajo) prayers with a loose English translation to “all is beautiful again”. This definition of beauty is one of balance, harmony, spirit, and hope. In the fight for climate justice, hózhó nahasdlii is not just a destination. It’s a map for how we get there.

These climate negotiations are spiritually and physically taxing and always fall drastically short, painting a picture of hopelessness. However, we know hope is rooted in those people and communities outside of this venue who understand that we need (re)connection to our land and our teachings. As we work towards harmony and beauty, we must remember that it is okay to hold both hope and frustration in our bodies and spirit. It’s okay to make time for both pain and joy with our international relatives! Dance together. Cry together. Sing together. Hold each other. We are hope. We are medicine.

Similarly, the work of our climate justice movement needs balance as well. While some are focused on negotiating every word and bracket of text, others are here to bring attention to the injustices and crises of their communities through organizing nonviolent direct actions.
... Read more ...