ECO notes that there are some signs of progress in the negotiations on climate finance accounting. SBSTA started the week with a 62-page document and is now down to two competing and polarised submissions of 9 and 4 pages respectively. At the time of writing, the co-facilitators were boiling the submissions down into a new (presumably shorter) text.
ECO 3, SB48-2, English
Related Blog Posts
In the midst of the finance ‘storm’ falling on Bangkok, everyone wants to know what is next for the Green Climate Fund (GCF)?
Developed countries have long been fans of the “do as we say, not as we do” approach to climate diplomacy; so it should come as no surprise that they’ve adopted this approach to loss and damage in advocating for climate insurance as the solution.
We know we’ve raised it before, but we realized yesterday that it was worth another reminder as none of our concerns were raised during the transparency discussions: the Facilitative, Multilateral Consideration of Progress (FMCP) will only be effective if it builds on the expertise and perspectives of civil society. Unless you step up, we risk ruining what could be a constructive process.
Market negotiations resumed at full speed in Bangkok, with new text being published after only one day of negotiations. Parties are feeling the pressure now that COP24 is looming. We’ve started the session by hearing lists of priorities for items that could not be postponed to 2019 (assuming that not all issues could be resolved at COP24).