Eco Digital Blog

“Today's Fossil is awarded to Russia for blocking the start of the SBI through trying to alter the agenda. In Doha, Parties made progress on improving the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol by getting rid of some of the hot air in the system. Yet, now Russia – who is not even a Party to the second commitment period of the Protocol – is all bent out of shape about how the decision was taken. Of course, having matters being formally adopted and adhering to the rules of procedure are very important elements in this process, however blocking the work of the SBI for two days is not the way to have this matter is resolved. There has been an item on the COP agenda dealing with proposals regarding the rules of procedure for the past two years. The SBI agenda is full of pressing issues that could also yield real emission reductions – like reforming JI and the CDM to ensure additionality or reviewing the adequacy of the long-term goal. So Russia why don't you use that super power of yours to get the SBI back on track?!"

A question to delegates: How will you ensure that the two fastest growing sectors in terms of emissions – international aviation and maritime transport – contribute their fair share to global efforts to reduce emissions?

In Monday’s reports to SBSTA by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the news was not good. The IMO has suspended discussions of market based measures (MBMs) to some undefined date in the future, and with it the chance to set emissions targets for the shipping sector, which accounts for around 3% of global emissions.

On the aviation front the news isn’t quite as bad, at least not yet. The ICAO Council will discuss MBMs for aviation later this month, and MBMs are still on the table. There is some encouraging news from the aviation industry itself this week – the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which represents most airlines globally, has called on ICAO to adopt a global MBM this year. Although the specifics of their proposal leave a lot to be desired – only offsetting growth in the sector after the year 2020 – IATA’s decision puts the spotlight on ICAO.

Measures for these sectors, which would internalise the environmental externalities by putting a price on emissions and generating finance that could be used to respond to the climate crisis, are facing fierce resistance in both the IMO and ICAO. These bodies need to get serious and adopt adequate measures to control their pollution – in September (ICAO) and by 2015 (IMO). They still have a chance to prove that they can take the necessary steps, but the clock is ticking on these organisations to deliver.

FCCC/CP/1996/2...*sigh*...is a document close to ECO’s heart! While there is no denying that clear rules of procedure – finally formally adopted and adhered to – would be an important development, ECO should be forgiven for doubting the sincerity of the sudden, but independent, interest of Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine in the matter. 

ECO has been around since 1972 (if you forgot to send us a birthday present this year, see yesterday's issue for some suggestions). However, one’s institutional memory need not stretch that far back. In fact, one only needed to be in Doha, to understand where our scepticism comes from. 

Russia, Belarus and Ukraine opposed the overwhelming consensus on a COP decision in Doha. But their reasons were completely different from those of Bolivia's similar objections in Cancun. Bolivia objected a COP decision on the grounds that the deal on the table was not ambitious enough. ECO notes a clear difference here. In Doha, Parties made progress on improving the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol by getting rid of some of the hot air in the system. ECO was delighted with this development as – after all – important things in this process (emissions, hot air, the gap in financing commitments) are supposed to go down and not up. But Russia, Belarus and Ukraine did not agree. In fact, a number of targets that were on the table in Doha from the economies in transition would have increased the total amount of hot air in the system.

There have been ample opportunities to discuss ways forward on the rules of procedure – the Mexico and PNG proposal being a prime example – and ECO does not remember strenuous and vocal support from the current proponents back then (in fact, Russia seemed more interested in its other proposal to amend Art. 4.2(f) of the Convention). So why raise concern now?    

Improving decision making procedures in the UNFCCC is appreciated. And if Russia, Belarus and Ukraine want to help, ECO encourages them to team up with Mexico, PNG and others to make real progress on this issue at COP19.  Even better, there is already a place holder on the provisional agenda for the COP to discuss it! A fast-start step towards improving procedures would be to get on with the SBI work now. Though the negotiations and their rules may seem surreal to some, climate change is very real to millions across the planet, and there is strong consensus that we need urgent action.

ECO hopes that the ADP discussions will focus on solving the equity puzzle. The world needs an effective, science-based, fair and ambitious climate agreement. Here is an attempt by ECO to demystify the climate puzzle we are facing. The fact that atmospheric CO2 concentrations recently reached the 400 ppm mark was an ominous reminder about the urgency of substantial actions to keep temperature rise well below 2 degree C, and the ultimate goal to return it to 1.5 degree C above pre-industrial levels. To resolve this challenge, developed countries must increase their pre-2020 pollution reductions and ramp up support for developing country actions through finance, technology and capacity building. Adaptation and loss and damage should also be given the necessary levels of support. These are the preconditions to rebuild the trust among Parties and for a successful outcome from Paris in 2015.

ECO believes that negotiations will never succeed unless Parties confront the equity challenge. More precisely, Parties need to deal with their differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, while protecting developing countries’ need to provide their citizens with sustainable living standards, as is available to citizens of any other country.

At the minimum, this means Parties need to develop a shared “Equity Reference Framework” that embodies the Convention’s core equity principles. ECO identified these as: a precautionary approach to adequacy, CBDRRC and the right to sustainable development. Along with the latest science, these core principles, taken from the Convention itself, including of course the call for developed countries to take the lead in climate mitigation – can be used as a benchmark when framing, setting and reviewing Parties’ pledges and financial commitments. Increasing ambition of pollution reduction should be based on a fair share approach.

To achieve this task in a time bound manner, ECO suggest that Parties need to take a systematic approach to make best use of the time and resources available. First, we need to hear Parties' focused ideas about core equity principles and respective indicators. We also need to hear Parties' ideas for a process by which relevant articulations of the core Convention principles and proposed indicators can be quickly distilled into a concise list. This list can then be used to establish the fair share commitments of Parties in what ECO calls the Equity Reference Framework. Over the next two weeks, the ADP should begin the discussions required for the 2015 agreement, in the context of standardised equity indicators and taking steps to realise this framework. ECO seeks an Equity Reference Framework that institutes a process to scale up Parties' commitments and pledges for the post-2020 agreement, by inviting Party submissions and a process that includes review of commitments by international experts.  

Parties must go beyond just the principles to develop standardised indicators. The present session should be sufficient to crystallise the indicator discussion, which will lead us to the development of the framework.

At the end of the day, of course, all of this will depend on Parties taking the equity challenge seriously and stepping forward to make the difference required for a successful ADP outcome in Paris. ECO will be closely watching, and that’s really not a surprise, as we are friends of equity and the ADP