In Paris, 195 countries agreed to limit global temperature rise to well below 2°C, aiming for 1.5°C. Yet, current INDCs are setting us on a pathway to around 3°C. To make matters worse, the remaining carbon budget even to stay well below 2°C might be used up by the time NDCs really begin to take effect. What we want is greater ambition now.
Parties have agreed that this issue will be high on the agenda at COP22 in Marrakech, with a high-level event on pre-2020 action and the facilitative dialogue on the implementation of pre-2020 commitments. This is all well and good, but we need to go beyond expert meetings, dialogues and events highlighting options if we are to close the mitigation and adaptation gaps. What we want is action now.
Delegates in Bonn must take the following steps:
1) Ensure that the Technical Expert Meetings focus on identifying barriers to more rapid deployment of climate-friendly technologies, as well as the actions needed to overcome those barriers.
2) Mandate the co-champions to spell out, in a scenario note, recommendations for decisions that Parties can take at COP22 to build support for the implementation of these actions.
3) Initiate a process under both the SBI and SBSTA to develop criteria for these actions, to ensure that they deliver real mitigation or adaptation change, respect human rights and food sovereignty, have environmental integrity and fully assess the potential risks associated with new technologies.
4) ECO wants to remind Parties that more action in developing countries will require adequate support, including fully delivering the US$100 billion promise. Developed countries need to come to Marrakech ready to put forward a clear and transparent roadmap on just how they plan to deliver by 2020.
My name is Inga Fritzen Buan and I am speaking on behalf of Climate Action Network.
World leaders have agreed to keep global warming well below 2°C and to pursue efforts to limit to 1.5°C. However, if more is not done now, action under the Paris Agreement might be too little, too late. We need more action, faster action, now.
Therefore, the technical expert meetings must be results-focused and serve as incubators for globally transformative initiatives in specific sectors and technologies.
We ask that the SBI and SBSTA initiate a process to develop criteria to ensure that these projects and initiatives respect human rights and food sovereignty, have environmental integrity, and that potential risks associated with new technologies are assessed.
Overcoming barriers to finance should be on the agenda for every TEM and part of the high-level champions’ work. To overcome the significant finance gap, CAN expects developed country Parties to be proactive about drafting the finance roadmap agreed to in Paris. The result should be presented at COP22 at the latest.
CAN asks that the champions produce a scenario note for 2016 and 2017, including on resource mobilization and engagement with Parties and non-Party stakeholders on how to turn words into action.
We look forward to meaningful civil society participation in both technical processes.
The Paris Agreement sets a clear vision for the world to keep global temperature rise to 1.5°C, through a full decarbonisation of the global economy. It also provides a framework to improve action on mitigation, adaptation and finance through regular reviews and renewed commitments – for all countries simultaneously.
With the Paris Agreement clearly setting out the task that lays ahead, this year Parties need to create provisions under the Paris Agreement that will enable, incentivise and enforce action at a national level. This requires a delicate balancing of provisions that enable national action and those that create obligations. Civil society has an important stake in this process and must be listened to.
We cannot forget that current commitments are wholly inadequate to keep warming to 1.5°C. At current emission levels, we will use up our entire 1.5°C compatible carbon budget by 2020. Urgent action is needed now. The Technical Examination Process (TEP) should focus on identifying actionable solutions that can close the gigatonne gap and the barriers to these solutions. But identifying solutions is not enough – the newly appointed champions for pre-2020 action should produce a scenario note for the next 2 years showing how they intend to address barriers and enable actual implementation.
The next best opportunity to rectify the current shortfall from the inadequate (I)NCDs will be at the 2018 “facilitative dialogue to take stock of the collective efforts of Parties”. Parties must start preparing themselves from now for the (re-)submission of NDCs in 2018. This review must take relevant findings from the upcoming IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C and the INDC synthesis reports into account.
Additionally, countries need to dial up the ambition of their INDCs in line with climate objectives, with adequate support to developing countries and a clear view on the economic, social and environmental co-benefits that come with low carbon development.
The question mark over finance needs to be removed. Uncertainty in scale, delivery and scope of climate finance is and has been the biggest impediment towards progress. A roadmap to the US$100 billion annually is urgently required. This roadmap must close the financing gap in preparing for and addressing rising climate impacts, be rooted in predictability and based on transparency between developed and developing countries. The result must be support for the most vulnerable in dealing with impacts through adequate and predictable climate finance, especially via the loss and damage mechanism.
The success of COP21 and Paris Agreement is not a given – history will judge it based on the scale of results achieved by countries in the following years and decades. These results depend to a great extent on the scale of financial flows between countries for enabling national action. ECO hopes that countries will be true to their word, and the Agreement will be fully implemented.
Parties chose to land in the ‘well below 2°C’ zone, while still pursuing a 1.5°C warming limit. This is, however, not compatible with GHG emission neutrality somewhere in the second half of this century. Full decarbonisation, with no tricks (like non-permanent offsetting and geoengineering), is needed and should be what those who claim to be ambitious fight for!
The endless variations in the new text trying to reframe the Convention’s preambular ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and their social and economic conditions,’ [ECO’s emphasis] are a reflection of a genuine global struggle to come to terms with new realities. ECO does not romanticise the past, nor ignore historical responsibilities. The Paris Agreement can only deliver on its goal if all respect the Convention in full.
Which brings us to means of implementation. The floor of US$100 billion seems to now be established. But the agreement does not enough to ‘shift the trillions.’ ECO believes the Paris Agreement sends a signal to investors about the long-term direction. It pays lip service to setting a carbon price. Yet, Parties are about to fail in their duty of care, which would make them commit to finally end all fossil fuel subsidies, stop financing carbon-intensive investments or indeed commit to divestment.
That the current INDCs, many of which are conditional on adequate international support, are not enough to limit warming to well below 2°C, let alone 1.5°C, is acknowledged and shockingly taken for granted. For now, there is no plan to close the resulting gap. We do not need to wait until 2018 for the IPCC to tell us that the pathway we are on forecloses limiting warming to 1.5°C. Independent assessments have already shown that developed countries in particular are lagging behind. The facilitated dialogue in 2019 merely opens the door for countries to rethink their lack of ambition. In 2025, ECO does not want to be looking back on the Paris Agreement, and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight judge that this was a grave error. The five-year cycles of updating and enhancing #### (shall we just call them NDCs?) can start immediately upon entry into force.
Loss and Damage
The fight for loss and damage continues in dark corners of Le Bourget. To the most vulnerable, we say: Stay strong! To the blockers: You let the genie of liability and compensation out of the bottle. Please put it back in, as nobody is calling for it in this agreement.
Transparency, MRV and Compliance
After a decade of building confidence and trust through these talks, the Paris Agreement still reflects the fear that transparency on implementation and meaningful review of outcomes could be punitive. Shining a light is something ECO has done since 1972. In light of the bottom up character of the INDCs and the facilitative nature of the proposed review we urge all to lighten up and embrace transparency.
On a related note, ECO always understood the Durban mandate was ‘to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties,’ to mean an international agreement would have some teeth. Simply put: the bracketed wording on ‘compliance’ needs to be included in the Paris Agreement.
ECO is shocked that countries have surgically removed human rights from the core climate change agreement.
A broad coalition of civil society organisations and indigenous peoples have come together to collectively support joint text for Article 2, the heart of the agreement. All attempts were made to keep it simple for Parties. Instead, civil society’s voices are being ignored. You forgot that you represent us. You forgot that your job is to speak for us.
President Hollande: When you said that ‘COP21 would be a new step for human rights’, what exactly did you mean?
ECO praises Mexico and other champions for their work in promoting human rights in the operative text of the agreement. We owe it to the world’s vulnerable—those least responsible for and most impacted by climate change.
Today, Friday, a new moon will rise over Paris. ECO still has hope it will mark a new era. The change that is needed takes all of you. Soit brave!
- Disallowing the use of offsetting. To achieve the 1.5C goal, we need to focus on emissions reductions
- Enhancing inclusion of ’environmental integrity‘. by inclusion of the additional principles‚ real, permanent, verified and supplemental for any international exchange of mitigation outcomes under this mechanism
- Elaborating how to avoid double counting. ensuring a corresponding adjustment by both Parties for an exchange of mitigation outcomes covered by their ###
- Establishing eligibility rules to participate in carbon markets. If offsetting is to be allowed (against ECO’s stern advice) developed countries should definitely not compete with developing counties for project financing. It would be inequitable. Use of international credits should be supplemental to ambitious national action. Only countries with absolute, multi-year targets (budgets) should be allowed to engage in markets
- Aachieving sustainable development. Given the goal of the mechanism is to support sustainable development, there should be a work program agreed to develop modalities for sustainable development indicators and a ‘do no harm’ assessment.
- Crating new and additional climate finance. Agree a share of proceeds on all use of markets including in 3.20 (and ideally universally)
- Achieving net atmospheric benefit. Any new offsetting mechanism (still not listening to ECO??) should reduce emissions through the cancellation of a share of credits used.
Developed countries in the Convention must ‘take into consideration’ the impacts of the ‘response measures’ [in 4-2-8(h) and 4-2-10]. An interpretation is that victims of mitigation measures such as energy efficiency or alternative energy policies in the North could be compensated for decreased sales. This idea, regularly put forward in the UNFCCC by the Saudi Arabia, is mostly seen as an insult to vulnerable countries such as SIDS, where impacts of climate change are of a much greater magnitude.
Now that a wave of energy transition is sweeping the world, with 100 big cities and 43 vulnerable countries committing to 100% renewable energy, and insistence that oil should stay in the ground, no Party can be seen as responsible for lost sales of oil products. Markets, recent technologies and individual actions by citizens or businesses are responsible for this development, not Parties.
This concept shouldn’t be a laughing matter anymore. Diversification by fossil fuel dependent industries or countries is not only necessary for the climate. It also makes business sense. A new article in the draft (4-9-e former 4-9-f in L6), applicable to all Parties, insists on ‘resilience of socio-economic systems’ and on ‘economic diversification’.
Fortunately, some progress is being made on this unilaterally. Saudi Arabia’s GDP (market exchange values) in 2014 was about US$753 billion; the value of its total export was about $373 billion, of which oil alone stood for $285 billion. The value of oil revenues has declined to only 38% of its GDP. Saudi Arabia should be proclaiming its success, and showing others how to diversify their economies in such a way. The Saudi example demonstrates that there is no need for Article 3.15’s cooperative mechanism to address the adverse effects of response measures.