ECO Newsletter

Soon, as we all know, the horse trading will get serious. But though ECO can only stand on the sidelines and shout advice, here we go: A short term compromise that hobbles our long-term prospects would be a disaster, and must be avoided at all costs. This is true across the spectrum of critical issues – from finance to loss & damage – but it’s true in particular when it comes to the Global Stocktake, which is critical to the legitimacy of the regime and – in particular – critical to the effective functioning of the ambition mechanism.

When the smoke clears, if we’re to respect the clear Paris mandate for a meaningful stocktake that is conducted “in the light of Equity,” the related modalities must ensure that equity—for example how parties consider their contributions to be fair and ambitious—is considered across all items. Ensuring Observers’ inputs into the stocktake can help in getting this right, especially since they aren’t subject to the same constraints as Parties, who aren’t always able to speak freely. Civil society can—as will be obvious to anyone who attends today’s side event on the new report from the Civil Society Equity Review coalition (hint: 3PM, Wisla).

Over the past eight days, ECO was quite pleased to hear that all negotiators seem to agree on the added value of the Adaptation Fund (AF). Quick reminder: the AF is a successful institution with well-functioning governance which provides full-cost grant financing to small-scale concrete adaptation activities. It is focused on the most vulnerable populations, very often through direct access for developing country institutions. This is exactly the kind of adaptation funding we need — and we need much, much more of it!.

ECO was surprised that some developed country Parties are pushing to have additional seats on the Fund’s Board for contributors. Though strangely, these are the same Parties opposing a decision encouraging contributions. But contributors who are willing to engage in the Fund’s Board can easily do so through the seats assigned to their region or constituency. Why change something that works?

For ECO, one thing seems very obvious: there is a need to take a clear decision here in Katowice to secure the Fund’s future serving the Paris Agreement. And there is no need to change the AF’s well-functioning model.

The AF does not need changes to its operating model – but it will need sustainable, adequate and predictable resources to operate.

ECO has been searching the text of (former) APA agenda items and other PAWP agenda items (we’re looking at you, Article 6) for mentions of human rights and was dismayed to find these references few and far between. It seems that somewhere on the way to Katowice, Parties have forgotten entirely about their commitment to rights even though they have all signed on to at least one human rights agreement, not to mention the Paris Agreement. Is there an amnesia epidemic?

As ECO has pointed out, a respect for human rights, Indigenous Peoples’ rights, gender equality, public participation, just transition, ecosystem integrity and protection of biodiversity, food security, and intergenerational equity should drive the implementation of the Paris Agreement. Efforts to address climate change shouldn’t violate people’s rights or destroy the environment. Respecting and protecting rights goes hand in hand with climate actions and will enhance it, not impede it. Market mechanisms are no exception. They should respect rights, protect the environment, serve people and create (co-)benefits, not the opposite.

In its word search, ECO was pleased to see human rights references in Article 6, but this joy was brief upon realizing that every mention was in brackets. Parties seem to be questioning what human rights have to do with carbon markets.

They thought they could hide behind the soot and smog of Katowice, but not today! Let’s welcome back Australia to the scoreboard – where have you been?

The Aussies are big on transparency and have a robust system of greenhouse gas accounting and reporting on emissions at home, which is why we know they have had four years of rising emissions after scrapping a successful emissions trading system. So how will they meet their target?

Through carbon credits, of course! While their neighbour New Zealand came out this week and announced they will not use Kyoto Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) to meet their Paris target, Australia has remained silent in transparency and accounting in anticipation of using its hundreds of millions of credits to meet its target in a canter.

Let’s be clear: Australia is not interested in reducing emissions. It saddled up to the Trump sideshow on coal to promote its fossil fuel exports as well as Carbon Capture and Storage technology. At home, its Energy Minister is fast tracking plans to use taxpayer dollars to build new coal-fired power stations!

So, welcome back, Australia – don’t you think it is finally time to wake up and smell the smog?

So far, it is safe to say that the Arab Group has not covered itself with climate ambition glory in Katowice. With Saudi Arabia at its helm, the Arab Group has been fighting fiercely to strip the impending COP decision of ambition, notably by refusing to recognize the importance of the IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C.

However, against all odds, a little Arab country is standing up to its bigger and richer brothers by refusing to reject the science.

In a somewhat unnoticed intervention during the Talanoa Dialogue, the Lebanese delegation declared that it “strongly welcomes” the IPCC report and committed to both revise its NDCs and develop a long-term decarbonisation strategy by 2020.

The head of delegation concluded their story by stating that “ambition is contagious, so let’s spread it!” ECO hopes that some of this ambition will pollinate other Arab countries. It won’t have to travel far…

We’re nearing the end and we’re not quite sure how much progress you’ve made in advancing the transparency negotiations. So we won’t take so much of your time, we just want to provide a couple of comments on the important issues in the transparency discussions.

• ECO is quite concerned with the proliferation of “encouragement” in the transparency text instead of ‘should’ or ‘shall’ requirements. Having strong transparency rules is a way to increase ambition and that is something we all ‘shall’ do!
• Flexibility and providing support are key to facilitating improved reporting and transparency over time – and that’s the goal, right? Flexibility should be provided to those Parties that do not have the requisite capacity, but, once Parties have the capacity, they should no longer use flexibility. Improvement plans are a great tool to help Parties plan to build their capacity over time.
• It is important to transition to the Paris Agreement’s enhanced transparency framework as soon as possible. ECO suggests that the first biennial transparency reports should be submitted in 2022 in order to inform the first Global Stocktake and to show the rest of the world that you are moving forward and building momentum for the Paris system.