ECO Newsletter

The Warsaw International Mechanism on loss and damage (WIM) is approaching its sixth birthday and Parties are busily negotiating the Terms of Reference (ToR) for its review. ECO has listened and clearly supports the views of those vulnerable developing countries that the WIM was set up for; who ask that their needs in addressing loss and damage should be a key guiding aspect of the review. And, to be honest, understanding this request is pretty straightforward and simple. ECO was happy hearing that some Parties suggested this should include consideration of particularly vulnerable populations and ecosystems, as well as better integrating gender concerns, beyond country needs, as has already been in the work plan of the WIM. ECO is annoyed about those developed countries who are resisting referencing developing countries’ needs in the ToRs.

When negotiators hone in on finalising the ToRs, it is essential that they do so with the perspective to provide the COP with the information necessary to take immediate action to strengthen the WIM, in particular in relation to finance to allow vulnerable countries to deal with the losses they face. That is why substantive discussions on the way forward for finance, for an improved architecture and new sources of finance, need to happen between Bonn and COP25.
... Read more ...

Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE) forms a crucial pillar for successful implementation of the Paris Agreement and is the focus of Article 12. It includes six elements: education, training, public awareness, public access to information, public participation, and international cooperation.

Today is the second ACE day of SB50, so what needs to be done? We need to start moving from evaluation of the eight-year-long Doha Work Programme (DWP) to look towards a new ambitious framework for ACE. Here are some thoughts from ECO:

1) Talk loudly and proudly about ACE and invite others to join the debate, making sure that the voices of those groups explicitly mentioned in the DWP are included. ACE matters!
2) After the review of the DWP, ACE needs to empower learners and take into account the new UNESCO ESD2030, currently a draft, which emphasises “ESD has to affect the unsustainable production patterns of current economic structures more directly”.  ACE empowers learners for transformation and active global citizenship. ACE matters!
3) ACE efforts need to be valued. All countries are encouraged to incorporate their ACE activities in their upcoming NDCs, reflecting all six elements in a balanced manner. ACE matters for NDCs!
4) Public participation is a human right.
... Read more ...

Today, ECO is redoubling its efforts, and sharing not one, but two pieces about Article 6! You guessed it, this one is about double counting…
There is no time to double-back on this. Parties, remember when you signed the Paris Agreement? That’s when you agreed to avoid double-counting.

Corresponding adjustments must be applied to all credits transferred, both from inside and outside of NDCs, and regardless of whether they are used towards an NDC or any other climate commitment.  ECO is frightened by the prospect of CORSIA, the international aviation’s carbon market, going ahead in 2021 without proper accounting rules having been agreed on by the UNFCCC. Additionally, transparency must be ensured, and the thought of having to track credits around the world is making ECO dizzy. Avoiding double counting will take a combination of proper accounting rules and sufficient transparency to ensure those rules work. Simply reporting transfers without actually adjusting the relevant emissions account (based on the Party’s inventory) is not enough to ensure environmental integrity or proper accounting.  

Preventing double-counting is one aspect of ensuring the environmental integrity of carbon markets. Robust rules must be applied to all aspects of 6.2, 6.4, and all other potential or future mechanisms where mitigation outcomes are transferred between countries or used for other international purposes (e.g.
... Read more ...

It’s exciting to see so many Annex I Parties participating in the multilateral assessment for their biennial reports. ECO congratulates Parties for participating and thinks the multilateral assessment can be a great place to share lessons learned and experiences with other Parties in a constructive environment. We look forward to hearing your presentations and listening to the Q&A sessions throughout the day. 

Since ECO can’t ask questions during these workshops, we thought we would share our questions with you, so here they are:

To all Parties:
Can you provide an update regarding any action taken to strengthen your policy-making process – in particular in relation to public access to information and public participation – so as to improve climate responses and promote policy coherence in the context of progress made towards meeting your commitments under the UNFCCC?
Australia:
Australia’s Minister for Emissions Reductions states that the country’s growing fossil fuel LNG exports is a “substantial global contribution to be proud of,” as it led to avoided emissions of 148 MT. Can Australia say how it came up with this number for avoided emissions? Is Australia keen to change the accounting framework to take ownership for Scope 3 emissions? 
Denmark:
There is a risk that emissions from biomass combustion are not accounted for when importing from countries where forests and deforestation is not counted in their NDCs.
... Read more ...

There was some additional humour in the air last week as the below picture spread both inside and outside of the Article 6 room faster than a climate change-induced wildfire. As Parties restart their discussions on the KP transition, ECO hopes that they will remember this dam, and won’t let it crack.

If it was up to ECO, no KP credit would be used after 2020. Clearly, the “robust rules” in the below picture are not robust enough, because none of these hot air credits should be allowed to flow through to article 6.

In Doha and Marrakesh, Parties agreed to limit the transition of AAUs from the first to the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Very much the same debate is taking place now. And there is no reason to suddenly change course. You know the numbers: if the dam breaks, the market will be flooded.

Young people were born into a world of climate change, pollution, loss of biodiversity and the realities of vast inequality. Generations before us knew we would have to face the consequences of climate change, yet we were excluded from the decision-making processes. Now, we must work together with all generations for intergenerational equity to get a legitimate seat at the table, demanding the protection of our future. 

In the face of the climate crisis and its catastrophic consequences, we need to be united and demand to be heard. Cooperation between generations is the key to achieving a future where life can thrive and where the rights of all people on earth are equally respected. 

We welcome and acknowledge the reports of the IPCC and IPBES, which shape our knowledge of the crisis. On the other hand, it forces us to wonder why this issue has been continually ignored by politicians who have failed to act on what we desperately need to do to mitigate the crisis. There is no choice but to act. Now. 

This is why we put our lives on hold for the climate strikes. Our strikes are as necessary as the air we breathe – this is why we are willing to sacrifice precious days of school.
... Read more ...

Intergenerational equity is reflected within the preamble of the Paris Agreement, and as such, young people are allowed to participate within the UNFCCC negotiating space. But this participation and acknowledgement has and will continue to be silenced if the presence of big polluting businesses continues within the UN climate negotiating space. 

The dominant presence of those most responsible for the climate crisis not only results in the suppression of the voices of youth, but also those of indigenous peoples, women, and other marginalised groups. To protect these groups and the integrity of the negotiations, young people believe that we desperately need a Conflicts of Interest policy. 

The well-financed, well-organised, and deliberate attempts by these big polluters to interfere in the policy making processes are very prominent here at SB50 and in the UNFCCC. So much so, that it has created a space where the irrationality of having those who profit from the climate crisis, here at the UNFCCC, is no longer coming into question.

So far in the Arrangement of Intergovernmental Meetings (AIM negotiations), where this issue could be discussed, we’ve seen non-party stakeholder contributions being pushed to later sessions and witnessed the calls for a policy on conflicts of interest by Climate Justice Now, the Women & Gender constituency, the Indigenous Peoples Organisation and YOUNGO being met with complete disregard by parties. 
... Read more ...

Education, training, public awareness, public access to information, public participation, and international cooperation – collectively the six elements of Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE) – form a crucial pillar for successful implementation of the Paris Agreement. ACE is vital for young people, who not only fought on behalf of Article 12, but also have a great need for empowerment in order to tackle the challenges of climate change. 

The ACE negotiations at SB50 centre around the preparation of the Terms of Reference for the final review of the Doha Work Program (DWP) on Article 6 of the Convention, which will conclude its mandate and be evaluated in 2020 at SB52. Looming beyond this review is the question of what the framework will be for ACE action following the DWP. 

Parties so far lack consensus on the scope of the final review of the DWP to consider possibilities for this post-2020 framework. It is a cause of significant concern for many, including young people, that some Parties seem reluctant to address this topic. This reluctance takes place under the guise of not wanting to prejudge future decisions under the process. Yet, there is no question that we must have a new ACE framework to succeed the DWP, and this should constitute a framework that is even more robust. 
... Read more ...

Each year, according to the WHO, air pollution results in 7 million premature deaths. Burning fossil fuels is one of the main sources of air pollution and poses an existential threat to our health. This is only one aspect of the many ways that climate change negatively impacts human health. Climate change also contributes to increased heat strokes and deaths due to extreme weather events. These effects put the viability of all of our health systems at greater risk every day. We must not forget that the ultimate objective of this convention is to protect people and the planet against the adverse effects of climate change on health and welfare.

As future medical professionals, we diagnose climate change as a medical emergency, and it must be treated that way. When someone arrives in the emergency room suffering from a life-threatening condition, you expect healthcare workers to act. Fortunately, there is a treatment available for this medical emergency: strong climate action. This includes, but is not limited to, phasing-out fossil fuels and the use of sustainable infrastructure strategies.

Addressing the root causes of climate change comes with substantial health benefits. These benefits are so significant that for some policies, they can entirely offset the costs of adaptation and mitigation.
... Read more ...