Eco Digital Blog

OK, we get the point. You are an important erstwhile superpower and won’t be pushed around. But you should know that petulance and hissy fits are signs of weakness, not of strength and global leadership.

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!

The shiny walls of the Maritim have a history of isolating negotiators from the troubles of the real world. While record floods have been devastating parts of Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Czech Republic, forcing thousands to leave their homes, business as usual has continued undisturbed in this calm and cosy UNFCCC bubble.

But yesterday ECO caught the scent of a fresh breeze of science and reality! It was when the 2013-2015 science and adequacy review kick-started with a reality check workshop. While scientists were at the podium, civil society was on the microphone and on the wall through Twitter. Thumbs up for the Secretariat and the Chair!

Here’s the good news: According to the Hadley Centre, meeting a 1.5 degree C limit is still possible. Sure, there is a low probability, OR it could be a rebound after a temperature overshoot of at least several decades. But despite these caveats, it’s still possible.

The bad “news” is that reality is closer to worst-case scenario put forward by the IPCC in 1990, which is why this adequacy review is crucial.

ECO recognizes there is a risk Parties will end up reviewing everything from the first UNFCCC document they ever read to the adequacy of the Maritim sandwiches (not adequate). This will only result in a bloated reiteration of what we already know, without clear conclusions, recommendations and decisions.

ECO expects the review to, firstly, assess the scale and nature of irreversible damage, human misery, ecosystem losses and risks related to tipping points that could be avoided if warming were limited to 1.5 degrees instead of 2. The structure of the review – including its process and the inputs it receives - must serve this key question, with special focus on the most vulnerable.

Secondly, yesterday Parties were warned about the fundamental importance of early peaking of global emissions if we want to achieve any tolerable temperature limit. This core consideration should guide the adequacy review.

Thirdly, the review should help put us on track in preventing climate chaos. It is not just another technical exercise. This is our opportunity to learn from past mistakes in order to set meaningful targets and deliver on commitments. The review must focus, from the beginning, on drawing actionable conclusions from the plethora of assessments that already exist.

The long-term goal, targets and commitments in the 2015 agreement must be based on the review findings. But the review must also guide enhanced short-term action (think ADP Workstream 2), with decisions to be taken in 2013 and 2014. The iterative nature of the review and the workplans of both the Joint Contact Group and Expert Dialogue should allow for this.

Finally, ECO was glad to observe that both presenters and Parties recognised that assessing the adequacy of a temperature goal or countries’ action is not only a scientific exercise. Eventually, guided by science, value judgements will have to be made. So close involvement of civil society should be obvious. In reviewing how governments are doing in meeting their goals, non-governmental organisations are essential to transparency and accountability. In making a value judgement of adequacy, involving civil society, and in particular the voices of those most impacted, is fundamental. ECO is looking forward to the first meeting of the Joint Contact Group, scheduled for Friday morning.

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.