ECO Newsletter

Since Bonn SB48, we have not stopped asking ourselves how to go through all the confusion of co-facilitator notes, intertwined and interlinked between politics and technicalities. Admittedly, to escape negotiation purgatory as soon as possible, we were hoping to see a clean text with clear options, as a result of the Co-Chairs’ work feeding into Bangkok. This hope was not fulfilled by the Co-Chairs, and a lot of the heavy lifting still lies ahead of you, Parties. But you know what they say: no pain no gain. Together with the note by the Presiding Officers of the APA and the SBs, the APA tools can help provide an agreed basis and speed up the negotiations for all Paris Agreement work programme items, reflecting clear and streamlined options, and with sufficient details for the outcome of the session to be swiftly turned into a draft decision text.

ECO’s recommendations for Bangkok are simple: Keep calm and work on the implementation guidelines as if their robustness had direct implications for future heat waves, droughts, storms, losses of lives and livelihoods, and the destabilization of societies.

While the rules that you produce will be an important cornerstone of the COP24 outcome, to ensure real success, a collective ambition is crucial.
... Read more ...

We’re not going to lie: the pace of the negotiations must speed up dramatically to achieve the envisioned outcome at COP24.

Previously in UNFCCC history, when a process had to dramatically increase its pace, it needed bold and ambitious diplomatic leadership from the presidency. Because ECO believes it’s essential to deliver a successful outcome at COP24 we have a few suggestions   We’re talking extensive bilateral meetings, multiple ministerial consultations, and heads of delegation meetings in order to pave the way to a successful COP outcome.

There is a need for clear leadership and guidance to substantially advance the discussion here in Bangkok and enable progress on the Paris Agreement implementation guidelines, real and predictable climate finance, and the Talanoa Dialogue.

What does this mean in real terms? We’ve adopted everybody’s favorite format of guiding questions to start figuring it all out:

• Success at COP24 is about the final outcome package, encompassing the rulebook, raising ambition, and scaling finance. What is the Polish Presidency’s vision for a successful COP24 package?
• How will the presidency be using this week in Bangkok to lay the foundations for securing all the elements of a successful outcome?
• Are there informal consultations planned to allow the Parties to voice their expectations around possible outputs from the Talanoa Dialogue?

The Paris Agreement was a critical milestone in many regards. Firstly, it created a universal framework mobilizing all states to contribute to urgent climate action in a transparent and equitable manner. Secondly, the Paris Agreement stressed the importance for climate action to build on the Parties’ existing human rights, social and environmental obligations, including those related to indigenous peoples’ rights, gender equality, public participation, ecosystem integrity and the protection of biodiversity, intergenerational equity, food security, and the importance of ensuring a just transition.

COP24 will take place as the United Nations celebrates the 70 anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Building on the Paris Agreement legacy and inviting Parties to consider good practices related to the incorporation of human rights in climate action will demonstrate that governments remain fully committed to this cornerstone of the UN.

As negotiators here in Bangkok work to define guidelines for climate action, they should also ensure that these social and environmental principles are fully integrated into the rulebook. Only then can the guidelines really deliver the full “Spirit of Paris.”

What Parties – including many of you – crafted in Paris, should not be undermined in Bangkok and Katowice. We know we can count on you not to let this happen.

Wouldn’t you agree that sometimes the most satisfying results come from a slow but steady journey with unwavering commitment to what is right? ECO has seen negotiators make steady, – if slow – progress this session in clarifying their views and finding options to move us closer towards success at COP24. That is right, and  – what is also right is that parties need to deal with the crunch issues, – particularly finance.

The task for the next few months is huge: COP24 in Katowice must deliver the action package needed to put the Paris Agreement into full motion. As Parties prepare to continue negotiations in Bangkok, they could benefit from guidance from our Presidential Poles. The Polish Presidency needs to articulate its vision for COP24. A) Landing a robust rulebook which enables ambition. B) Ensuring that finance is flowing to enable climate action on the ground. And C) taking the Talanoa Dialogue to the next level so countries together signal that they will raise climate ambition by 2020.

But the UNFCCC process is not the only gig in town. There are a bunch of upcoming events which can make or break success at COP24.

• At the Petersberg Dialogue and the Ministerial of Climate Action (MoCA), ministers need to deepen their understanding of how to craft a COP24 outcome which best supports the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

Yesterday, the Talanoa Dialogue received two submissions, The Lofoten Declaration and the Not a Penny More Declaration, representing close to 500 organizations from around the globe and 140 prominent economists respectively. They are offering a groundbreaking solution to increasing climate ambition: tackle fossil fuel demand, supply and financing at the same time! What a novel idea! Be groundbreaking by not breaking ground.

These declarations are not new to the halls of the UNFCCC. However, by officially making their way into the Talanoa Dialogue process, signatories hope that even more Parties and stakeholders will get the message: It is high time to put an end to exploration, expansion, and financing of fossil fuel production.

To those wealthy, developed producers that have mastered a particular expertise in oxymorons (clean coal, oil pipelines to support climate action, natural gas as a bridge fuel etc…), ECO’s message is simple: In with the good and out with the bad. It is time for a managed decline and a just transition out of all fossil fuels.

ECO had hoped finance negotiations would progress substantively in Bonn so that in the run-up to COP24 Parties could engage in a serious discussion on scaling up finance to ensure the implementation of the Paris Agreement. But here we are on the last day of this session and progress on finance has been dramatically slow.

While negotiators spent the past 10 days talking about how to accurately report past and future climate finance commitments, we are still far from adopting robust standards. There also remains little clarity on when and how countries will start a process to define a new collective goal for climate finance after 2025. Finally, those who attended the Suva Dialogue might have noticed that negotiators missed the elephant in the room: finance for loss & damage and the innovative sources that would help to mobilize it.

But, these discussions are only the tip of the iceberg. The true question that donor countries need to address in the run up to the Bangkok session and to COP24 is how they will deliver on their promises of support for developing countries to implement the Paris Agreement This support will enable many developing countries to step up their ambition.
... Read more ...

Until this week, ECO thought there were a few things we could all agree on (and have in fact agreed on in previous decisions): Parties should pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C. The UNFCCC process is based on best available science and has always benefited from scientific input. That is why the IPCC has been invited to prepare a Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C. Current ambitions are insufficient to limit warming to 1.5°C, which is why we are looking for solutions through the Talanoa Dialogue. And because scientific input is so valuable, Parties have welcomed with appreciation the dedicated space within the Talanoa Dialogue to discuss the implications of the Special Report. Everyone can agree on that, right? Apparently, everyone but Saudi Arabia.

ECO was shocked to see Saudi Arabia trying to roll back previous decisions and undermine the scientific base of the UNFCCC process. The Saudi delegation tried to block any reference to the IPCC and the Special Report on 1.5°C in the SBSTA conclusions on research and systematic observation. Remarkably, they argued that simply acknowledging that the IPCC is working on this report and that it would be useful input, would put undue pressure on the scientists.
... Read more ...