As ECO watches the crash and burn exercise currently taking place in the Durban Platform negotiations, we thought it would be a good moment to remind Parties about the spirit that emerged during the closing plenary in Durban.

Durban was a critical turning point for the future of the climate regime. While it resulted in what negotiators called a delicate balance, it left much for the Parties to do afterwards, in particular the need to tackle the glaring gap in reducing global emissions and providing climate finance. ECO was relieved that after hard fought battles, a sense of responsibility and leadership prevailed in Durban. Parties were willing to set aside their hardline positions in the interest of reaching an agreement, for both pre-2020 and post-2020 periods.

ECO recognizes that it essentially took the G77+China and the EU to save the day – with the EU's positive moves of agreeing to sign on to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. In doing so, it helped keep alive the only legally binding agreement on climate, as well as restoring some faith amongst developing countries. In turn, these countries agreed to be part of a new global climate regime that would be applicable to all in the future. This was a huge leap of faith on their part, in a context where very little leadership in taking ambitious actions on either reduction of emissions or delivery of finance has been demonstrated by developed countries. 

But as the dust settled, ECO realized that not all governments were that generous. Somehow in the cut and thrust of those last moments in Durban, a band of countries managed to escape the glare of the headlights. The largest developed country polluters, like the US, Canada, Russia and Japan, did not offer anything by way of compromise. Instead, some jumped ship from the Kyoto Protocol, while the US dug in its heels when asked to commit to comparable emissions reduction actions – both on common accounting and an adequate target. ECO reckons that they must have been rubbing their hands in glee when they got away without having to make any commitments. They now see an opportunity to lock in their precious “pledge and review system”. They apparently believe that their status in the pre-2020 period is equal to that of developing countries and that this bottom-up, non-science-based, non-equity based approach is all that we should be getting.

The only way to avoid this fate, and ensure non-Kyoto developed countries honour their commitments to comparability, and yes, even QELROs, is through the AWG-LCA, where pre-2020 mitigation ambition for non-Kyoto parties will have to be addressed in a principled, rules-based manner, comparable to Kyoto parties. ECO observes that’s why these countries are the most resistant to addressing their commitments and responsibilities under the LCA.

The AWG-LCA should complete its work and the process must determine mitigation action for these countries. The spotlight is therefore shining on them once again, and they will be expected to offer comparable action. And so, we wonder, what will they offer?  ECO sees that they are now seeking cover from taking responsibility by trying to jump to the Durban Platform.

While ambition should also be pursued under all tracks, ECO wants to remind the US, Canada, Japan, Russia and others who have not joined the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol that they are developed countries, with clear obligations under the Convention and Bali Action Plan, and in terms of history, morality and legality. ECO  challenges Australia and New Zealand to decide which way they will jump – ECO will be the first to welcome them into Annex B with QELROs that lead to a fair share of real gross emissions reductions.

You all must shine with the spirit of Durban – there is no darkness left to fade into.

ECO applauds that the negotiations on loss and damage have managed to agree on draft conclusions here in Bonn. Despite the lack of movement in issues such as finance and emissions reductions, negotiators have achieved some better understanding on the issue of loss and damage. The conclusions recognise the role of slow-onset impacts like sea-level rise and ocean acidification, and non-economic losses, but also the importance of involving local communities in risk assessment processes.

A crucial achievement in Bonn has been the reaffirmation of the mandate that was given by the Durban decision, namely to explore a range of approaches and potential mechanisms, including an international mechanism, to address loss and damage.

Negotiators will need to continue working hard to figure out the functions and elements of such an international mechanism. Possible elements could include coordination, information assessment, climate risk insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory elements. The Doha outcome must recognize that climate change is not only a technical and political issue but also one of global climate justice. The outcome must further ensure that the international community starts to build up an adequate response to the multiple problems of loss and damage from climate change impacts.

In the next months, expert meetings will be held in all developing country regions. ECO thinks it is crucial that the process follows a needs-based approach. Key questions include: What is the scale of likely impacts and what are the main problems of loss and damage? What are major needs in the regions that have to be addressed? Where are local solutions sufficient and where can international mechanisms fill existing gaps? And what scale of response is required?

All Parties should work to improve their understanding of the problems and develop solutions. Submissions on the need and scale of the problem would help advance the issue. These can then provide a sound options-based approach for the negotiators coming to Doha. Recognising that much of the loss and damage debate has many questions is no reason not to move forward on developing options and solutions for international and local collaboration to tackle the challenge.

ECO can does not deny its frustration over the fact that many Parties are failing to deliver ambitious mitigation, even though they have agreed to limit warming below 2 degrees Celsius and are aware of the most recent science. They are thus positioning the planet on a course towards a world of increasing climate change loss and damage rather than a transition to a truly low-carbon and climate change-resilient world. Mitigation and adaptation are key to minimise loss and damage. But they are no longer sufficient.

1st Place Fossil of the Day to the US and 2nd Place Fossil to Australia and New Zealand
The 1st place Fossil goes to the US for refusing to even discuss its mitigation and finance commitments under the Bali Action Plan.
In the developed country mitigation spin-off group yesterday, the US stated its disagreement to even discuss such vital elements for developed country action in the pre-2020 period as comparability – which includes common accounting – addressing the ambition gap and compliance. Important as workshops and technical papers are, they do not build a transparent regime that enables countries to show that they are acting in good faith to reduce their emissions. The good news is that he US did not state disagreement to discussing a QELRO for itself, so we look forward to seeing the US’s domestic carbon budget to 2020!
In the LCA finance contact group yesterday, some developing countries asked for a mid term finance commitment from their developed country counterparts. Instead of giving reassurance and using the opportunity to build trust in this currently toxic atmosphere, the US asked those developing countries if they had thought of a mid-term mitigation plan themselves to “deserve” this mid-term climate finance. However, the US seems to have forgotten that climate finance should not be held hostage by the mitigation discussion. Climate finance is needed to address adaptation needs for the most vulnerable countries. Besides, the US itself was the leader in brokering the $100bn deal three years ago.
 
The 2nd place Fossil goes to Australia and New Zealand for not submitting a QELRO carbon budget into the Kyoto Protocol. These countries continue to vacillate on whether they will follow the shameful example of Russia and Japan (and let us not even mention Canada). Our time in Bonn has shown that the international community is growing very impatient as it continues to wait and see if Australia and New Zealand deserve its scorn or its applause.

ECO just caught wind of bizarre news. Apparently, a Japanese governmental committee is considering a range of pollution reduction targets that are lower than Japan's 25% target. When negotiators are discussing an agenda item on raising ambition so intensively (and Japan actually supports that agenda item here), this looks utterly strange. 

Why should the range of targets be so low? The reason is hidden behind the problematic assumptions used to calculate these target options. First, they includes a ridiculous assumption to increase nuclear energy, even after the Fukushima tragedy. Second, energy saving potentials are “fixed” deliberately at a low rate and thus do not reflect Japan's real pollution reduction potential. In a nutshell, there is still good opportunity to raise Japan’s ambition for 2020. Far more than the ranges under consideration are achievable. ECO knows that this discussion is an ongoing one and it has not been finalized. We also know that the range of targets do not include forestry and flexibility mechanisms. Nonetheless, the range suggests far less ambition and potential than the reality in the country. We wonder if, while Japan remains outside of Kyoto, they are really committed to doing their fair share to solve the climate crisis? Japan instead needs to raise its ambition and show what it can contribute to the planet!