ECO Newsletter

ECO was pleasantly surprised with yesterday’s country announcements on long-term strategies (LTS) during the opening plenary session of the Talanoa Dialogue. AILAC and the EU both clearly marked LTS as solutions for tackling climate change. ECO believes such strategies allow countries to structure what they’re going to do to tackle climate and outline how they’re going to do it, and so are key tools in helping countries to break the “ambition ceiling”.

 

What was missing though, were details on country-progress on developing their LTS, implementing them, and beefing-up the associated shorter-term measures used to achieve them, namely the NDCs. Without this, countries were essentially making “feel-good” announcements that have no merit and provide no certainty on their commitment to de-carbonise.

 

Fear not though, ECO is happy to share some tips on how to develop and implement a robust LTS and thereby maximise your country’s ambition.

 

ECO strongly encourages all Parties to develop and implement economy-wide LTS that are consistent with achieving the Paris Agreement goal of 1.5°C and the Sustainable Development Goals. It is imperative that a LTS is ambitious, includes clear timelines for phasing out fossil fuels, is legally binding (to avoid them being dropped by any less ambitious future governments that may come) and is regularly reviewed and revised upwards for compatibility with achieving 1.5°C.
... Read more ...

Ludwig is well known to be a lover of modern art, especially of Andy Warhol, who famously said that “art is what you can get away with.” Consequently, he was delighted to see that Australia obviously sha

res this love; they clearly had this quote in mind during the global stocktake informals yesterday. However, equity is not whatever you can get away with. In the context of these negotiations, it always means equity between countries (think CBDRRC and national circumstances), and thus equity in process. Participation alone is not enough for us to consider the stocktake as being conducted “in the light of equity,” as mandated by the Paris Agreement.

The writing is on the wall – we need finance and (non-insurance) financial instruments to address loss and damage!

 

The COP has given the ExCom a clear mandate to use the Suva Expert Dialogue (SED) to work on enhancing finance (and other means of support) for vulnerable countries and communities.

 

Developing countries and experts were unanimous that we must find more money. Vulnerable people are currently facing “exploding risks” they didn’t create and are being left to pay for them. This must be reversed.

 

Various experts and representatives from Parties also noted with concern an excessive attention on insurance at the expense of stronger action on other, often cheaper, fairer and effective instruments. Labelling it a “magic” tool, as one expert from a developed country

called it, did obviously not match the perception of many in the room.

 

Developing countries continued to articulate their priorities: finance to be able to scale up instruments (e.g. through a such as a global solidarity fund) such as social protection schemes; relocation funds; reconstruction funds; alternative livelihood programmes; insurance premium subsidies to name few.

 

To deliver urgently needed resources we will need public contributions by developed country governments as well as the innovative sources of finance that many Parties and experts referred to – like a fair, equitable, polluter pays Climate Damages Tax, to raise the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary.
... Read more ...

While raising ambition has become the buzzword at the UNFCCC talks, ECO would like to encourage Parties to consider a more comprehensive definition of ambition. What if we measured successful climate action not only from a quantitative perspective (e.g.  measured in tons of greenhouse gases and Dollars for climate finance?), but also from a qualitative perspective (e.g. how has climate action contributed to respecting, promoting and considering human rights and related principles and obligations)? Effective implementation of the Paris Agreement requires a critical and cross-cutting element: putting people at the center of all climate decision-making and action.

 

At COP21, Parties committed to apply their respective rights-related obligations to their climate actions. This is monumental as literally all Parties to the UNFCCC are signatories to at least one international convention on human rights. Now that Parties are focusing on developing the Rulebook of the Paris Agreement which will have a long-term and decisive impact on the implementation of the Agreement, ECO would like to encourage them to reflect the full vision agreed on in Paris.

 

ECO is thrilled to hear that on Wednesday the European Union, supported by a number of other interventions, called for the inclusion of the various rights and associated elements from the Paris Agreement preamble into the set of recommended information for States to provide in their NDCs.
... Read more ...

ECO eagerly awaited the opening plenary of the Talanoa Dialogue yesterday, excited to see which climate champions would emerge. First off the blocks were the LDCs and AOSIS, both groups calling for the Talanoa Dialogue to result in enhanced ambition in the form of updated NDCs. AILAC likewise called for having updated NDCs by 2020, adding the importance of developing long-term strategies by 2020, as well that provide domestic roadmaps for the transformation that is required to fulfill the goals of the Paris Agreement. Props to the European Union for also emphasizing that this is an exercise focused on enhancing ambition and ensuring the relevance of long-term strategies to the ambition picture, and EIG for highlighting the key role the Talanoa Dialogue will play in raising ambition. ECO would love to hear more about what this means for your NDCs though. ECO welcomes that the Umbrella Group recognized that the Talanoa Dialogue is an exercise to inform NDCs, but being a bit more specific would help, don’t you think?

 

Thanks to South Africa for raising key questions about the outcome and process – how the transition will happen from the technical to the political phase, and what the outcome of the political phase would be.
... Read more ...

This year will be the third time the COP takes place in Poland — Dziękuję Ci [thank you]. ECO looks forward to more pierogi and sausages!

 

Sadly, food doesn’t make a good COP. COP24 is a chance for the Polish government to step up, help lead the transition, and strengthen global climate action. Poland can use this moment to revamp the country’s international reputation, rather than strengthening its shameful position as Europe’s number one climate laggard.

 

ECO welcomes Poland’s commitment to deliver on the Paris Rulebook, but wants to make it clear that only a robust, fleshed-out and balanced rulebook will be considered a successful outcome for COP24.

 

Alongside the Rulebook, ECO expects Poland to take its responsibility towards the Talanoa Dialogue seriously and make sure the political phase at COP24 leads to enhanced climate ambition. This includes a commitment that countries will ramp up their NDCs by 2020. This is as much a priority as progress on the rules.

 

ECO also encourages Poland to ratify the Doha amendment to the Kyoto Protocol and help it enter into force by COP24, given the importance of pre-2020 climate action and the honouring of deals made.
... Read more ...

Have you participated in the negotiations on the Modalities for the accounting of financial resources in SBSTA lately? When first hearing some countries and the co-chairs claiming they already had a very solid base to start drafting a final text soon, ECO felt like singing Waka Waka. As Sharkira said: “You know it’s serious we’re getting closer, this isn’t over”.

 

But here is the thing: progress on finance accounting is urgent and long overdue. What’s more, existing climate finance accounting rules are inadequate. They allow loans to be counted at full face value and inaccurate accounting of climate relevance, which obscures the level of assistance developing countries receive by a huge margin.

 

OXFAM highlighted the latest public climate finance numbers for 2015 and 2016, finding that net climate specific public finance in 2015 and 2016 is estimated to be around US$16 to $21 billion per year — significantly lower than the estimated $48 billion per year if donor numbers are taken at face value.

 

ECO notes with enthusiasm that for aid, donors have decided to end the practice of counting loans at full face value by agreeing that from 2018 headline ODA figures will be reported on a grant equivalent basis.
... Read more ...

1. The gap is clear, and it is finance!  
   
   There was much stating of the obvious – vulnerable people on the front line of climate impacts don’t have the luxury of assessing their risks neither considering to transfer or retain them. As the representative of Suriname brilliantly reminded participants: if a whole city like Paramaribo is at risk, what can we do?

   Back to reality, we now need to focus on how the international community is going to raise funds to address those risk – at least $50bn a year by 2022. Some sources even foresee needs up to $300 billion a year by 2030.  This will definitely require innovative sources of finance like a Climate Damages Tax.

   The Tuvalu solidarity fund and the Ethiopian productive safety net program are good examples. International finance must scale them up and roll them out more widely.

2. There was a powerful sense of déjà vu.
   
   The discussions that happened yesterday have already happened at the SCF Forum in 2016, in Doha in 2012, at workshops in Tokyo, Bangkok, Addis Ababa, Barbados and Mexico in 2012. Most progress done so far is about areas which developed countries prioritise, like enhancing understanding or insurance, but somehow there is amnesia around finance.

... Read more ...