Eco Digital Blog

Pre-2020 Ambition

ECO thinks that the ministerial roundtable to increase pre-2020 ambition should first ensure that all ministers clearly understand why it is urgent and important to increase ambition by all parties with adequate support for developing countries. How about starting the roundtable with highlights of the UNEP gigatonne gap and the World Bank 4° C reports? 

Next, ministers should propose what they are willing to do.  
 
Here’s a good one: how about moving to the high end of the pledges. 
 
Here’s another one: How about ending fossil fuel subsidies? 
 
While we’re at it: Phase out HFCs? 
 
Are we done yet? Not even close. Time to stop building any more coal power stations. 
 
Come on, everyone can play!  Just choose and do it! After all, we’re running out of time!  
 
Speaking of which, and last on ECO’s list: agree a date to agree on further measures. 
 
Topics: 
Related Newsletter : 

Closing the Loose Ends for Adaptation

As COP 18 welcomes Ministers from around the world, ECO would like to focus their attention on significant matters related to adaptation. May we have your attention, Ministers: adaptation needs are closing in fast!

National Adaptation Plans. These are intended to address medium and long term adaptation needs.
 
Let’s keep this short and sweet:
 
First, guidance to the Global Environment Facility is needed now. LDCs are committed, the technical guidelines are out, and there is clear willingness among other developing country Parties. So really, there’s no excuse for delays. 
 
Second, use those funding bodies. The LDCF and SCCF are ready, willing and able to be capitalized.  There’s no denying that more funding is needed and this must be additional to that of NAPAs. Otherwise, all the good and benevolent intentions of NAPs are completely without effect.
 
Loss and Damage.  
Political opportunity cannot be lost here:
 
As negotiators are running out of steam from all their work on the L&D text, ECO will pitch in to make sure that this reaches success.
 
These points should steer you in the right direction:
 
• Loss and damage needs to be given the political space that it deserves; negotiators must keep the political will to keep loss and damage high on the agenda.
 
• The work programme on loss and damage must be approved and continued, with assurance that discussions on an international mechanism will be a focal point.
 
• The text cannot shy away from rehabilitation and compensation – these are key to the loss and damage debate and so outcomes should provide guidance on how to address these aspects further.
 
Ministers need to admit that loss and damage is the unfortunate consequence of the failure to mitigate and the limited international support for adaptation. Now, instead of dwelling on the cause, we must act on the solutions and not let this text fall through the cracks.
 
Some parting words to Ministers on adaptation in the ADP and LCA:
 
ADP: Don’t forget the Cancun Adaptation Framework! ECO wants you to make sure that it’s regularly reviewed in the ADP in light of mitigation ambition and the needs of -- and support to -- developing countries.
 
LCA: Finance is key – this goes without saying. Instead of re-emphasizing the importance of finance for adaptation, ECO expects Ministers to guarantee its delivery without any further delay. There’s ample evidence to prove the existence of sufficient funds so make the commitment!
 
And so the strenuous effort to address loss and damage has a well defined path to success. Let us not fail to achieve it!
 
Related Newsletter : 

LCA Gaps: From Text to Tonnes

In Durban, Parties agreed to conclude the LCA here in Doha.  A successful closure necessitates that the critical issues are resolved or find homes in which further work can be done. In the LCA text tabled Monday, there were some gaping gaps, from text to tonnes.   

ECO was shocked that text on 2013-2015 financial support turned up missing. There needs to be at least a doubling of fast-start financing, and a mandate for a political process to scale up financing to reach the 2020 $100 billion per annum target.  Adding insult to injury these two issues are also missing from the financing text advancing under the COP. No wonder there are strong calls for the MRV of finance if this is the state of play! 
 
The 2-year Doha Capacity Action Plan and decisions on enabling environments including IPR and on the interlinkages between the different bodies under the Convention, including the CTCN and TEC, also seem to be missing in the the text.
 
Where there is text, ECO is concerned that it lacks ambition and environmental integrity.  The work programmes under the SBs for clarifying commitments and actions inspire little confidence that such processes will lead to the increase in mitigation ambition so sorely needed up to 2020 and beyond.  
 
Moreover, ECO is getting tired of seeing the same “rigorous, robust and transparent” text on common accounting.  Instead, it is high time Parties actually agree some rules to give those words substantive meaning.  A clear deadline to agree common accounting rules would help build confidence.  
 
In addition, there are even some issues like base year and GWPs that can be agreed in Doha.  Finally, only italics on the global goal and peak year – really?  ECO wonders whether the climate is responsive to typographic emphasis rather than actual commitments.
 
The core questions, of supreme relevance to theADP, are also unresolved – namely, equitable access to sustainable development and the review of the long-term temperature goal.  Here a one year process for equity and a narrowly defined review of the long-term temperature goal under a robust body would go a long way in ensuring the ADP is well informed.   
 
So how did we get here?  Well . . . we all know that the U.S. is not willing to negotiate certain issues.Other ship-jumpers, like Canada, Russia, Japan and New Zealand, aren’t helping things progress either, despite noise and sound bites in the capitals.  
 
So please pay attention: successful closure of the LCA is vital in order to allow the ADP to get on with its own work to raise ambition in the near-term and to conclude a new, comprehensive global deal no later than 2015.
 
Therefore ECO asks Parties to engage with the text in constructive manner and work towards a successful outcome and closure of the LCA.  Come on negotiators and ministers . . . we know you can do it!
Topics: 
Related Newsletter : 

MRV of Finance: What Could Be So Hard About That?

ECO understands that progress on transparent reporting of climate finance is grinding to a halt. SBSTA was meant to adopt common tabular formats for reporting by developed countries of both emissions and climate finance. Now the process appears to be deadlocked with no immediate solutions in sight.

Apparently, developed countries are opposing a key proposal made by developing countries on transparent reporting – a common tabular format on climate change. Essentially, this is a method to provide listings of individual, bilaterally financed actions, rather than just aggregate figures per recipient country or per sector. 

The idea to list every single financed action with information on title, recipient country, committed amount, climate component of amount, sector, mitigation/adaptation, grants / / loans (also stating grant equivalent) and so forth seems pretty reasonable to ECO. Transparency of one's own actions is a key ingredient to a 'circle of confidence' and a precondition for the ‘V’ in MRV. Developed countries could use such lists to demonstrate transparency, as well as tracking where and how their climate finance is flowing. 

However, developed countries continue to argue that submitting project listings is too cumbersome. ECO would like toremind everyone that developed countries are already compiling such lists – forexample, the OECD DAC reporting system currently used to report aid flows. So the idea of such listings is neither new nor prohibitively cumbersome.

If developed countries continue to resist providing listings of financed actions as part of their MRV exercise, ECO is always eager to serve.  For example, ECO could use the ‘freedom of information’ laws that exist in many countries to locate theinformation and submit it to the UNFCCC, as a courtesy to transparency and the ‘V’ in MRV.

Topics: 
Related Newsletter : 

Civil Society's Voice Being Marginalized

 

ECO has been pondering the evident marginalization of the ‘civil society voice’ lately and started scribbling a few preambular thoughts on a serviette…

  • Reaffirming that vibrant public participation “allows vital experience, expertise, information and perspectives from civil society to be brought into the process to generate new insights and approaches”1;
  • Acknowledging the respectful, positive and constructive dialogue at the December 1 ADP Special Event;
  • Encouraging Parties and the Secretariat to provide roundtables and other opportunities to enhance the full inclusion of civil society as a relevant and meaningful voice in these negotiations; . . .

    #Operative text... 

 1Guidelines for participation of representative of NGOs at meetings of the bodies of the UNFCCC.

Related Newsletter : 

Instructions Enclosed for Non-Negotiable Planetary Deadline

Dear Ministers:

This is the non-negotiable planetary deadline. The recent UNEP and World Bank reports have been unequivocal: the window to stabilize temperature increase below 2° C, and thus avoid the most dangerous climate impacts, is closing rapidly. Durban set a number of other deadlines for Doha which must be respected. They include adoption of the amendments to the Kyoto Protocol, the successful closure of the LCA, and agreement on work programmes for both the 2015 Protocol negotiations and raising near-term ambition. So roll up your sleeves, Ministers: there is much to do!  As always, ECO has some helpful hints to make your week easier.

#1 Don’t cheat – it doesn’t help the climate or build confidence 

The amendments to the Kyoto Protocol must be adopted in Doha, progressing the only legally binding climate agreement in order to streamline the process. 

Keeping Kyoto alive is crucial for two reasons – first, it has key architectural elements that must be reflected in the 2015 Protocol. These include overall and national carbon budgets, economy-wide targets, common rules-based accounting, compliance and five year commitment periods. Second, it was part of the Durban package and its adoption will enable progress next year on both elements of the ADP -- its 2015 Protocol negotiations and near-term ambition. Pending its entry into force, it should be provisionally applied from1 January 2013.

But there are some things that should be left behind – the 13 gigatonnes of CO2eq ‘hot air’ from the first commitment period.  It does nothing for the climate and it’s high time to expel it from the system. The next COP President, Poland, must show leadership now and stop stalling efforts in the EU on this issue. 

The good elements of the Kyoto Protocol should not, however, remain the exclusive property of KP parties. We’re looking forward to our ‘ship jumpers’ in the LCA proving that they aren’t evading responsibility.  They can do so by agreeing the same accounting standards and setting carbon budgets here at Doha. 

#2 Face the issues head on

In 2015 the world must conclude a deal that matters for the climate. Parties will need to address two crucial questions: first, what do we need to do to avoid dangerous climate change; and second, how are we going to do that? 

In Doha, to help answer the first question, it is critical to agree on a review of the long-term temperature goal that focuses on exactly that, is narrow in scope, and takes placeunder a robust body. 

Given that equity and ambition are two sides of the same coin, we must also have a one year process exploring equity issues, reporting into the ADP at COP 19 and allowing the ADP to mainstream the progress.

Finally, confronting these issues head on means facing up to the impacts of climate change that are happening now.  Addressing loss and damage is essential to assure the most vulnerable countries that their future prospects are being fully protected. 

#3 Deliver the resources you promised

Vital work to adapt to climate change and transition to a low carbon economy cannot happen without resources.  So delivering on existing finance commitments and planning to meet additional needs must be at the heart of the Doha outcome. Committing to a minimum of $20 billion a year for the 2012-2015 period is the very minimum of the first stepsrequired.  

But in addition, ministers, you must also make sure there is a rigorous system to track the delivery of all money promised, ensuring that it is new and additional, and not quietly recycled from one vitally needed programme to pay for another.  

You must also commit to a political process with the weight to ensure that developed countries scale up climate finance to the promised level of $100 billion per year by 2020. We must not become bogged down in endless technical analysis -- there are already good options on the table. All that is needed to turn them into reality is political will.

Finance is not an add-on to our work on climate; it is what drives our work, and it’s what gives the victims of climate change at least a fighting chance in adapting to the impacts. Finance must be at the center of your attention in the new negotiations under the ADP.

#4 Be Ambitious!

Ministers, we expect you to increase your mitigation and finance ambition right here in Doha. The EU 20% has already been met, the Australian unconditional target of 99.5% is shamefully weak and the U.S. steers away from anything approaching something in the required scientific range.  

Meanwhile, ECO is still waiting to see even one finance figure for the post-2012 period. As a first step toward improving this woeful record, the EU should listen to the German Minister and increase its target to 30% here at COP 18.

The Doha outcome alone will not save the planet, so don't imagine your work is done when you get on the plane going home. The developed world will still need to increase its mitigation and finance ambition massively.  Because your work here will not nearly begin to fill the ambition gap in either area, you will also need to agree this week on both a high level and technical workplan to do so in 2013. 

We cannot afford to waste any more time. All countries need to capitalize on initiatives to raise ambition, whether inside or outside of the UNFCCC -- from reducing HFCs to phasing out fossil fuel subsides.  ECO is also waiting with bated breath for announcements from our Qatari hosts and Gulf neighbours on their contribution to the global effort.

Ministers: You are here to lay the foundations for a new Protocol.  You must therefore instruct your negotiators that they move in the middle of 2013 from conceptual brainstorming to concrete discussions, resulting in a ‘compilation text’  of proposals by COP19. Brainstorm and build -- that’s ECO’s motto!  The re-election of President Obama and the new leadership in China has created the potential for change.  Let’s capitalize on that in Doha and beyond. 

#5 Leave the laggards behind

The planet cannot wait for action. Some countries are clearly not serious about our common endeavor to address the threat of dangerous climate change. 

We cannot afford to wait for Russia, who won’t put a target on the table, but still wants any ‘goodies’ that might be around -- whether it means holding onto its ‘hot air’ or having access to revenues fromcarbon trading.  

We cannot allow the pace to be set by Canada, who failed to meet their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, and then withdrew in order to avoid the consequences.  

And New Zealand will need to make a choice -- is it serious about climate protection, or does it wish to be singled out as an obstacle to progress? These countries risk becoming increasingly sidelined, as the global community works to forge consensus on a new logic under the ADP.

Ministers, we need you to finish the work begun here in Doha. You must close the loopholes, deliver the money, addressissues head on, and map out a clear course for the negotiations under the ADP. Then you need to go home and act! 

Related Newsletter : 

No Ambition without Equity - no Equity without Ambition

In both ADP workstreams, Parties have begun taking positions on the future of CBDR. Some see a global spectrum approach as the way forward. Others advocate a system in which the annexes are nuanced and differentiated. Whatever happens, ECO sees the need for a dynamic system that differentiates on the basis of equity principles. 

 
ECO believes that it is helpful to cluster the various equity principles into three groups:
 
* Precautionary or adequacy principles – because  climate catastrophe would be the ultimate injustice
 
* CBDR+RC, which remains key, but must be interpreted and operationalised dynamically
 
* Equitable Access to Sustainable Development – because just and sustainable development are human rights that must be both protected and promoted by the climate regime.  
 
Why wouldn't Parties want to discuss these principles within a separate, one-year work programme, with the intention of operationalising them? Such a work programme must inform the ADP streams on near-term and post-2020 ambition. ECO calls for a COP decision on this equity work programme to be taken at Doha. The Shared Vision contact groups should prepare this decision.
 
One way or another, Parties have got to find the space to build greater understanding of one another’s positions if they are to identify areas of convergence. As they do so, the renewed trust that will be fostered could trigger higher ambition from all sides, especially in the near-term ambition track of the ADP. There is no time to waste. 
 
 
Related Newsletter : 

Today´s good deed: Donate Your DSA to the Adaptation Fund

In his remarks to the Parties on Wednesday, the Adaptation Fund (AF) chair underscored the great achievement made by the Fund this year. He emphasised, among other things, that the AF has now accredited twelve National Implementing Entities, which allow for direct access of developing countries to the funds of the AF. Experience shows that this has also triggered the strengthening of institutional capacities to manage project funds. For ECO, this is evidence that direct access is no longer a pilot test programme perceived as highly risky, but rather a reality. In addition, two years after its first call for proposals, the AF has approved 25 concrete urgent adaptation projects covering all fields of adaptation, with several more in the pipeline. A key objective is to target the most vulnerable groups. 

Because of these significant achievements of the AF and at the same time the scarce resources at its disposal, ECO is seriously worried about the dwindling resources and lack of predictability that poor countries are facing. Due to the over-supply of permits, the lack of mitigation ambition and the global economic downturn, prices for CERs, which provide the main source of income for  the AF, have gone down to record lows below US$2.
 
While almost everybody is looking at  the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which will hopefully lead to the long awaited transformational change needed to tackle the climate crisis, ECO would like to draw the attention of Parties to the Adaptation Fund. It is the only operating fund providing direct access under the Convention.  ECO believes that the AF should play an important role until the GCF is operationalised, and beyond. So let us now secure the survival of the AF.
 
In order to increase funds for the AF, Parties are discussing the extension of the CER levy to other mechanisms. Furthermore, since yesterday, individuals can donate funds into the AF through a simple procedure on its website. Dear COP participants: Why not donate one DSA into the AF for your daily good? (The donation function is also open to individuals from non-Kyoto Parties, and, by the way, hosted in the US). The more people contribute, the stronger the signal to incoming ministers that there is support for the AF. Looking into the books of the AF, ECO has found out that some not too poor countries, such as Japan, Norway, France and Canada, have not yet made contributions to fund projects. ECO wants to see additional contributions being pledged in Doha. The system allows for amounts of up to 13 digits (that may be sufficient to solve all adaptation problems now!). So ministers, bring credit cards to Doha!
Related Newsletter : 

En-gender-ing Progress

Is history repeating itself, or is a strong commitment to gender equality really on the table? During yesterday’s open-ended consultations on SBI agenda 21 (Other matters), the EU introduced a draft decision promoting gender equality in the UN climate negotiation process. The draft text decision, Promoting gender equality by improving the participation of women in UNFCCC negotiations and in the representation of Parties in bodies established pursuant to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or the Kyoto Protocol is in fact a re-affirmation and strengthening of a decision already taken more than a decade ago. During COP7 in Marrakech, the parties agreed to adopt Decision 36/CP.7, which recognized the importance of gender equality in climate decision making; urged the parties to nominate women to elected UNFCCC positions; and requested the Secretariat to keep information on the gender composition of UNFCCC bodies with elective posts. 

Despite this decision, participation of women in UNFCCC bodies and as Party delegates overall has remained disappointingly low. With that in mind, the EU delegation submitted this new decision to remind COP participants of the importance of gender equality. In many ways, the proposed decision is similar to the old one: it recognizes the importance of women’s participation as part of effective and equitable climate policy; requests the Secretariat to keep information on women’s participation in the conferences; and sets a goal of gender balance in all UNFCCC bodies.
 
So what purpose does this decision serve, besides reminding a plenary session of what they (hopefully) already know? First, it is important to take note that when this decision was brought to Parties, it was introduced under “Any Other Business”. That means that the needs and concerns of half the world’s population were not given a place of their own in the central agenda of the COP. Adopting this decision would place gender and climate change issues on the official COP agenda so that the interests of women would no longer be considered auxiliary to UNFCCC goals. Secondly, the decision requests the Secretariat to convene a workshop at COP19 to discuss gender responsive policies and strategies to advance gender equality in climate decision-making. Finally, it requests Parties and observer organisations to submit, by 31 September 2013, their views on options and ways to advance the goal of the decision.
 
Parties (including Bangladesh, Ghana, Iceland, India, Malawi, Mexico, Nepal, Pakistan, UAE and the United States) voiced support and some text revisions during the open-ended consultations co-chaired by Kuni Shimada (Japan) and Ambassador Diseko (South Africa). The UNFCCC Women and Gender Constituency proposed replacing “by” with “and” in the draft decision title. This seemingly innocuous amendment ensures that women’s equitable participation is recognized as a procedural right, while gender equitable outcomes of UNFCCC decisions would be recognized as a goal in its own right. The Women and Gender Constituency also suggested strengthening the paragraph requesting an in-session workshop, by deleting a reference to this workshop as subject to “available resources”.
 
The decision made in Marrakech came about when the ‘gender and climate’ debate was mainly about addressing the near complete absence of women from the process. This new decision will address the still existing gaps. We have come a long way since then in recognising that gender equality goes beyond participation in decision-making. The outcomes of COP16 and COP17, for example, included language on a variety of critical issues for women’s and men’s lives and livelihoods.  Replacing the ‘by’ with an ‘and’, a decision could be adopted that closes the gap on women’s procedural rights. But it  also opens space for discussion on how to promote gender equitable outcomes, as COPs 16 and 17 have started to do.
Tags: 
Related Newsletter : 

It is crystal clear: there is not enough ambition.

ECO is wondering how much more clarity this process needs.  Amongst many others, the UNEP and the World Bank have pointed out that while there is still a chance to restrict temperature rise to two degrees centigrade, we are not on track to avoid dangerous climate change. ECO thinks that there is no disagreement about that.

So where are we on next steps to address this issue and agree on essential and urgent mitigation action? Well, the Umbrella group seems to be telling us that there is no need to worry because they are making progress – they have a proposal for a new process! Yes, the Umbrella Group is proposing to clarify the pledges under 1(b)(i) and have suggested a two year programme to do so.
 
ECO would like to get a couple of points in this proposal clarified. You’re saying you need more time to talk? And that there will be no agreement of common accounting rules here?
 
Surely a bit of common accounting for 1(b)(i) pledges would allow the mist to clear and help Parties to check comparability of effort? Just set out a carbon budget for 2020. If you  think there is no need to compare apples and oranges, you could just check the number! And a little hint – we have a tried and tested way of comparing pledges – you know, under the KP... Now that would help everyone understand what’s what. And if the Umbrella Group signed up then that would sort the eligibility issue too.
 
At this point a couple of lines from a song spring to mind: a little less conversation, a little more action please. Now that’s a song we should all be singing...
 
 
Related Newsletter : 

Pages