Tag: AWG-ADP

The ECO Presidency is pleased to invite you to a special High-Level Observer Reception in the presence of ADP Chairs Dovland and Mauskar.

The ECO Presidency and ADP Chairs will have the pleasure of presenting you with views, creative ideas and concerns by non-governmental experts closely following negotiations here in Bonn.

The event will begin at 1.15 on Saturday the 8th of June 2013 at the Twilight Ballroom of the Maritim Grand Hotel in Bonn.

* This special event was organised in response to the numerous complaints received from delegates frustrated with the fact that NGOs are not allowed in closed meetings AND limited to short or no interventions in open meetings, due to time constraints. While we love to see delegates reading and quoting ECO, we don’t believe it makes up for these shortcomings in NGO participation under the ADP

* Cocktails will be served to delegates who write down and report on NGO views. Fossils will be distributed to delegates who do not show up to this event (courtesy of ECO).

* Dress code: black tie 

One of the reasons Copenhagen was such a mess was that countries’ commitments came at the last minute and weren’t available for any scrutiny beforehand. Some of these pledges are still unclear. Hence estimating the actual reductions that Copenhagen pledges have delivered has been a nasty and complicated chore.

Therefore, ECO has been pleased to hear about Parties’ proposals to set a 2014 deadline for targets and commitments for the 2015 agreement. We think this is important in order for us to be able to assess well before Paris whether targets and commitments represent countries’ fair shares and will deliver a pathway for staying below 2°C, let alone 1.5°C. It would also increase confidence and trust in the process leading up to Paris.

Parties take note! These initial commitments cannot be just whatever – they must be credible and fair. In order for us to ensure the 2015 agreement is equitable, covers all emissions and keeps us on a safe pathway, some basic rules need to be set before Warsaw to guide the national target-setting processes.

In Warsaw you need to spell out some rules for what kind of commitments are acceptable and unacceptable, including ways of ensuring transparency, quantification and comparability. One basic rule very dear to ECO is the length of the commitment period. It must not be longer than five years. 2025 and 2030 targets are closer than you think!

Today, Parties will put forward ideas for advancing adaptation in the 2015 deal under the ADP. 

As dangerous climate change looms closer and closer, and with little sign of increased mitigation ambition, millions of the poorest people in the world will face impacts that threaten their lives and livelihoods. Response to climate change through a new agreement must see adaptation as an essential component.

The roundtable will have inputs from the technical bodies, Adaptation Committee and LEG into the ADP to avoid duplication of efforts and to learn from ongoing work. This is important, so as to understand where the current architecture can be improved. However, it is even more important to identify major gaps that need to be addressed. Here, ECO sees an important role in the ADP process in correcting some of the shortcomings of past agreements.

The most important gaps are related to finance. Hardly any donor country has achieved the balance between adaptation and mitigation in the fast start finance period that was agreed in Copenhagen and Cancun. Adaptation finance lags far behind mitigation finance. Both are crucial and both need to expand rapidly.

Secondly, ECO also highlights the problem that currently only donors determine what kind of projects might be counted as fast start finance, without a voice for the recipient countries in determining whether the reported finance is really climate finance. ECO has serious doubts about some projects that have been reported as adaptation finance.

Finally, climate finance is undermining financing for poverty reduction and addressing the needs of the poorest. Almost all donor countries count adaptation finance as Official Development Aid (ODA). We observe many countries report rising climate finance figures, while total ODA is decreasing (often far below the committed 0.7%). If it had been agreed that adaptation finance counted as ODA and that it would target the most vulnerable and poorest communities, this would be less of a concern. But this commitment was deleted in the Copenhagen and Cancun negotiations, over the objections of civil society.

Prioritising the needs and risks of the most vulnerable people is essential. This means scaling up new and additional adaptation finance for post-2020, based on past and future responsibilities for causing the problem, and allocating at least 50% of public climate finance to adaptation.