Blog Posts

ECO would like to congratulate Sweden for pledging to the Adaptation Fund (AF) for the 4^th time, in a (as yet) lonely attempt to save it (and small island states) from going under. Pledging to the Adaptation Fund has never been this urgent as CER revenues have never been this low, dropping from 100 million USD in 2010 to an estimated 7 million in 2013. ECO has done the maths: it’s barely enough to fund ONE project under the Adaptation Fund. Without new pledges, the Adaptation Fund will have to stop financing projects next year at the latest. ECO wonders, do Parties realize what this means for vulnerable countries facing rising seas and extreme events?

In case the message is not yet clear, ECO would like to reiterate: the one and only Adaptation Fund is drying up at the same time as fast start finance winds down, and needs an urgent round of pledges. In case anyone doubts the value of the AF, it is ranked as the most transparent climate fund and is signatory to the International Aid Transparency Initiative. It prioritises benefits for the most vulnerable communities and promotes institutional progress through direct access.

In case we have not made it clear in every single ECO article, developing countries need assurance that their adaptation needs will be met and the negotiations need to see some trust building if we really want that deal in 2015.

The Adaptation Fund board sent a desperate call for contributions of an additional 100 million USD by the end of 2013, but only about 45 million has been received to date. And that was before the CER price fell this low. ECO believes that 150 million is the minimum necessary by Warsaw to maintain essential Adaptation Fund progress. All eyes on you, USA, Japan, Norway, Germany, France and others.

Chart notes: all figures are actual contributed resources. Australia pledged A$10 million in 2010 but has not yet delivered. Sweden´s pledge from two weeks ago has already been counted, since its fulfilment seems to be only a matter of time based on its good track record of fulfilling pledges.

In the midst of agenda controversies and lack of ambition, ECO would like to acknowledge that some countries are taking proactive actions, by bringing new ideas and commitments to the UNFCCC processes. ECO welcomes some of the contributions and actions by the Independent Alliance of Latin American Countries (AILAC) to develop a process to achieve a good climate deal in 2015.

They're not among the wealthiest nations, nor the poorest; they are middle income countries and, in contrast to many developed countries, they have committed their nations to reduce emissions within their capacities.

In yesterday's ADP plenary, they proposed to lead by example. They also welcomed the AOSIS proposal as a good starting point for action in the energy sector, which they see as being key to begin closing the gigatonne gap. The idea of scaling up and doing the same for other sectors such as transport, industry, waste and forestry is also appealing.

ECO looks forward to seeing more progress on positive actions. But remember, you committed to it, and ECO will be watching...

CAN hopes Australia's independent Climate Change Authority (CCA) had a useful time in Bonn gathering perspectives from Parties, in particular on how Australia's actions may help or hinder the road to a 2015 global deal.

With carbon pollution blasting through 400ppm and many nations preparing to ramp up their efforts, we guess you heard some stern views on the (lack of) adequacy and fairness of Australia's unconditional 5% target for 2020.

The good news? WWF earlier this week revealed Australia could bump up its target from 5% by 2020 to 25% at virtually no extra cost to its economy. A lucky country indeed! You'd be mad not to, wouldn't you? And while the cost to your GDP would be negligible, the kudos would be priceless.

In honour of your visit, ECO revisited Australia's conditions for moving to 15% and maintains these were comfortably satisfied by the Cancun Agreements and Durban Platform, along with new reporting requirements for developing countries and land sector rules under the Kyoto Protocol. But it's no secret that 15% falls well short of what a country with economic capability and clean energy resources like yours should be putting in. Wouldn't you agree? And as your own Professor Garnaut has made clear, with a coastal population, rising costs from extreme weather and shifting rainfall threatening to wreak havoc for your farmers, no developed country has a stronger national interest in keeping the global temperature rise as far below 2°C as possible.

Needless to say, the best way for Australia to protect its national interest and at the same time protect the environment is to set targets and budgets that accord with the science (remember the 40% below 1990 levels?) and represent a fair and defensible share for Australia. To ECO, setting your 2020 target to at least 25% below 2000 levels and setting an ambitious long-term national carbon budget looks like a no brainer. Smart for the planet, smart for the economy, and smart for Australia's world standing.  ECO hopes the CCA got that message loud and clear.

ECO is dismayed to have to write another article on the fact that the SBI has yet to begin its work. Boo! ECO would much rather fill its pages with all the ideas it has for the 2015 agreement or on closing the gigatonne gap (or at least some funny cartoons, fake recipes, or mock classified ads). Instead it feels compelled to ruminate on the lack of progress…

Ironically, it seems that this lack of progress has its origins in something that actually did make progress: Doha eliminated more than 3.6 billion tons of the hot air in the Kyoto system. Without this decision Ukraine and Belarus would have accumulated over 2 billion and 400 million tons of hot air in the course of the second commitment period due to their weak targets. There is no point giving the number for Russia as it has comfortably decided not to participate in KP CP2. 

The issue, of course, is how that decision was taken. While ECO fully supports resolving the long-standing matter of the rules of procedure, it is suspicious of the motives behind Russia, Ukraine and Belarus for insisting on it right now. For Russia, this just seems like sour grapes as they are not even a party to the second commitment period, and last time a proposal on the rules of procedure was discussed, seemed much more intent on pushing its own proposal to regularly review the Annexes of the Convention (which – oh, ECO doesn’t know – may explain some of the G77 and China’s positioning now on including new items in the agenda). As for Ukraine and Belarus, they would be much better placed to seek financial and technical support to genuine efforts to reduce their emissions rather than blocking the SBI. Blocking gives you nothing.

Doha, unfortunately, did not eliminate all hot air. Some still remains in the system and is currently caught up behind an EU bubble – here’s looking at you Poland (ECO would love to write about your new found ambition when you host the COP, but has a few articles in mind should you choose to pour cold “coaly” water on the whole thing…). Moreover, while the economies in transition had their “ambition” pushed up by new provisions, all developed countries’ ambition is still inadequately low, with no opportunities for a similar increase given all the loopholes they have deftly crafted.    

ECO urges all Parties, economies in transition, the G77 and the like, to work constructively towards resolving this issue immediately and starting the SBI today.