ECO Newsletter

The decision text on the second periodic review of the long-term global goal is being negotiated, and ECO was lucky to have a sneak preview of the first draft. It is good to see text reiterating the latest IPCC findings, including the need to halve global emissions by 2030 in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Surely, no negotiator will oppose what their scientist colleagues have already agreed?
We are also happy to see that the draft decision recognises that limiting temperature rise to 1.5°C is the only correct interpretation of the long-term global goal agreed in Paris, and that it urges all countries to support this. As evidenced by the devastating impacts that we have witnessed in recent years, even the current temperature rise of 1.1°C cannot be considered safe – 1.5°C is really the maximum the world can afford.     
ECO recommends Parties include two further points in the decision:
(1) Equity is key to achieving the long-term global goal. This was a clear message from the Structured Expert Dialogue and needs to be recognised. However, it cannot be used to stall progress. Those countries with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol have largely overachieved their 2013-2020 commitments.
... Read more ...

Sometimes we hear there are some divisions amongst developing and vulnerable blocs on loss and damage finance. But, after the first informal consultations on funding arrangements for loss and damage, ECO thinks it’s pretty clear – there are not.

The urgency and importance of this issue is such that Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda Gaston Browne made the first intervention. Parties were asked what their expectation were, and broadly, we heard that COP27 must: 1) acknowledge the current funding arrangement to address loss and damage is not fit-for-purpose (it doesn’t exist!),  2) agree at this COP to establish a new fit-for-purpose arrangement under the UNFCCC Financial Mechanism, and 3) agree on a pathway to design and operationalise it.

ECO listened intently today as the UN’s High Level Expert Group (HLEG) called the bluff of fossil greenwashers from across the world and their financial backers. The HLEG outlined the must-haves of credible climate plans, and guess what: they say flashy brochures with no substance, plans to build more volatile fossil fuel infrastructure, buying offsets that put human rights – including Indigenous Peoples’ rights – at risk won’t cut it.

Instead, the HLEG report says clearly that net-zero plans with integrity must exclude fossil fuel expansion; not count offsets as interim reductions; count all scopes of emissions; and align lobbying with climate action. They reaffirmed the red lines laid out by the UN Race to Zero body, which the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) recently distanced itself from, saying that anything outside these firm lines from the HLEG is “greenwashing”… oops. Embarrassing. Are Marc Carney and GFANZ paying attention?

The Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) are a vital piece in the finance jigsaw: keeping temperature rise below 1.5°C requires fundamental shifts in the way financial flows from publicly backed and owned international financial institutions (IFIs) are channelled and managed. ECO is seriously underwhelmed by the MDBs joint COP27 statement . The statement mentions the MDBs being on track to fulfil their Paris alignment commitments, but it makes no mention of energy at all, let alone phasing out fossil fuels, and it provides few clues as to how commitments are being implemented. There is also no mention of the joint strategy to support countries to design their 2050 plans.

ECO will be listening carefully later today at the joint MDB update on their joint Paris alignment process. The time is up for foot-dragging. Last year, a lack of leadership and collaboration between MDBs delayed the process. This was exacerbated by World Bank President, David Malpass, who, as reported by the Financial Times, personally sought to undermine a joint MDBs climate ambition statement in the run-up to COP26.

ECO wants to see urgency from the MDBs to keep their commitments and align with the Paris Agreement. ECO will be looking out for: an exclusion of all direct and indirect support for gas including LNG; support for a just transition that includes support for decent jobs, economic alternatives and energy access for all; and support to scale up grants and concessional finance to kickstart the green transition in many countries.
... Read more ...

As ECO highlighted on Monday, the GST is like a football game of two halves, a technical phase, followed by a political phase, with COP27 the equivalent of the half-time transition between the two halves. ECO is concerned that the focus at COP27 seems to be merely about repeating the first half technical achievements, without taking the needed steps to score political wins.

Need for coaching and leadership to translate first-half potential into second half winning goals
In a football match, half-time is the occasion when the coach and captain transform the tactical potential of the first half into goals to be scored during the second half. Likewise, the GST is in need of leadership to translate the potential of the technical phase into actual political wins. 
ECO is now eager to see the Egyptian and UAE COP27 and COP28 Presidencies step up and provide this leadership. The Egyptian Presidency could play the role of a visionary coach, motivating Parties to step up their game and sending signals for how the second political half could play out. This would be translated in a COP27 GST decision text, as well as the inclusion of this process in the cover decision text of COP27.
... Read more ...

With the agenda item on Loss and Damage financing adopted, ECO believes action should follow words. With a lot of work ahead of us, the right principles should be adopted to guide it.

1. Grants, fool!
Loss and damage financing can’t be based on loans. Affected communities will by definition already be suffering. Making them also indebted would be cruelty.

2. We don’t need an empty shell.
Creation of a dedicated fund is the optimal option, but it cannot be created as an empty shell. We already have funds that struggle each year to see at least some funding – and at times don’t get even that (see LDCF and SCCF). We need a channel that will be able to provide support for affected people, both in relief form and to help them restore their livelihoods.

3. Give me adequate funding or give me death!
Channeled funds should be adequate to the scale of the challenge, period. Inadequate funding for loss and damage will not suffice, and eventually may lead to further losses – and keep the most vulnerable in a vicious loop of suffering and scraping to rebuild.

4. It’s not about liability but about solidarity
The funding should not be about deciding who’s guilty, but about providing help to those affected, by those with the ability to do it.
... Read more ...

Too Little, too slow says the recent Adaptation Gap Report. And despite the overwhelming urgency for action and support, the first round of workshops on the Global Goal of Adaptation (GGA) ended with so little, oh so slowly. 

There is a reason.    

At the best of times, ECO finds it hard to convey what is happening in our communities and the ecosystems we inhabit to these national and international platforms. Yet everybody knows that most often, adaptation means people coping with the consequences of climate breakdown on their own, with families and neighbours. Evidence is that the most effective adaptation efforts are community based, by a few thousand people dealing collectively with their unique circumstances, vulnerabilities and capacities. 

But at the 4th workshop on the Global Goal for Adaptation on Saturday, discussions were still firmly centred on international and national affairs. No surprise there, it is the United Nations. But ECO insists the role of national systems in bridging the local to global nexus must not be underestimated. The GGA must reinforce existing foundations of adaptation action in countries, such as National Adaptation Plans and related monitoring, evaluation and learning systems, to channel finance to the appropriate levels and truly accelerate adaptation actions.  
... Read more ...

ECO heard Barbados Prime Minister Mottley say: “Ask the peoples of the world to hold us accountable and ask us to act in your name and ask us to save this earth and the peoples of this earth”. We have been, but often we find we are speaking in empty rooms.

We heard from the continent of Africa and the Small Island States the horrible tradeoffs that they must make when they are faced with devastating impacts as they shoulder the burden of the costs to support their people and rebuild, recover whatever can be recovered. Hear them, wealthy polluters who still peddle false solutions – what if you had the choice between feeding your communities and schooling your children. What would you do? Who will you turn to?

We heard the anguish. We want you to know if no one else in that big room heard you – we, your citizens and your people of the world — we heard and will amplify.

We heard very clearly that this year must deliver finance to address loss and damage. So let’s play the “end my sentence game” where one person adds to another, and see if that helps with the reception in the hall.
... Read more ...

ECO is confused about some stories that have been coming from all sides since delegates started arriving at COP27. These stories are from civil society observers, activists, and experts who paid for their tickets and booked their hotels. Or did they?
There are numerous instances of civil society observers being asked to pay 2x or even 5x the price of their booking and then being kicked onto the streets when they couldn’t pay. Why? Because apparently being an activist is expensive. But don’t worry! You can save hundreds of dollars or euros a night, you only need to change your mind and become a tourist, instead of participating in the Conference. Just go to the beach, relax and keep your mind off stressful issues like the climate crisis and loss and damage. Hence, ECO is wondering – is the UNFCCC badge really free? Is this COP inclusive only for those who are able to pay more? What will happen when more people arrive next week? Will this continue?
We remember the letter which the Egyptian Hotel Association sent to hotels in Sharm-el-Sheikh earlier this year, although COP Presidency denied any government involvement in it during a meeting with observer constituencies (ECO has seen this signed and dated letter in its original Arabic).
... Read more ...