Image: Saleemul Huq
Whether inside or outside, civil society's message to ministers is clear: 'Do your job and save the climate!'
Last night, negotiators completed comments on the second version of the ADP co-chairs' proposed decision text and draft conclusions. The co-chairs did a skillful job of focusing the discussion on paragraph-by-paragraph textual comments, with only the occasional excursion into recitation of well-known talking points.
It's clear there are still sharp differences amongst Parties on several issues. The co-chairs' task now is to capture compromises in the new version of their text this morning, and then try to resolve as many remaining differences as possible before sending their proposed decision and conclusions to the COP. That will leave Ministers with a handful of issues to address.
On the 2015 agreement, it's essential that Parties agree here in Warsaw on next steps in the process, including beginning work on a draft negotiating text at the ADP's next session in March in Bonn, and reaching agreement on the information that Parties should provide in their proposed post-2020 commitments no later than the second ADP session in June.
Those proposed commitments should be submitted by Parties in 2014 in order to enable a full and transparent review and allow for upward revisions in ambition by COP 21. The scope and focus of the review process should be agreed in advance of the submission date, so Parties know how their proposals will be judged against each other in terms of equity and fairness, as well as how far the aggregate gets to the 2°C goal.
The ADP should also proceed with the workshop proposed for June on the methodological issues of equity and adequacy, drawing on analysis from the IPCC and other experts. The workshop on the global adaptation goal should also be held next June.
India loudly proclaimed in yesterday's ADP session that they have long championed equity to be given full consideration in this process, and expressed amaze- ment that after feeling like a voice in the wilderness, interest has suddenly blossomed.
ECO is pretty amazed too – India has been raising so many concerns about the proposed equity workshop that it might be time to reconsider and instead work for a compromise that allows the workshop to proceed.
On pre-2020 ambition, Parties should indeed be ambitious in defining the scope of the ADP's work. Closing the well-documented gigatonne gap by 2020 will require greatly enhanced action on every front:
* All developed countries must enhance the ambition of their emissions reduction targets, and backsliding of the kind recently exhibited by Japan must not be sanctioned by the global community.
* Developing countries that have yet to make near-term emissions limitation pledges should do so, while those that have should implement them and wherever possible, broaden their scope.
* All countries pursue opportunities to ‘catalyze action in areas of high mitigation potential’, as the co-chairs' text puts it; this should include moving forward on the proposal from AOSIS to move vigorously to exploit readily available energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.
A notable development was the widespread support for the rapid ratification and entry into force of the second commitment period amendment of the Kyoto Protocol. And all developed countries – KP and non-KP alike – should bring enhanced mitigation commitments to the high-level ministerial dialogue envisioned for next June in Bonn.
Clearly there is much work to do. Parties must agree an acceptable ADP text here in Warsaw, and with that in hand, move forward to enhance pre-2020 ambition and ensure the adoption of a robust and comprehensive post-2020 agreement at COP 21. It’s time for negotiators and ministers to roll up their sleeves and get the job done.
The First Place Fossil goes to India for continuing to be a spoiler on equity at the ADP sessions. The previous fossil to India was for their push to get the only mention of equity in the text to be deleted. At yesterday’s late night ADP session, India once again spoke against equity opposing South Africa’s proposal on the Equity Reference Framework and wanting to cancel the workshop on equity at the upcoming ADP session in Bonn. We certainly expect more from a Party that showed promise of being an equity champion just two years ago in Durban, saying they could not see a future deal without equity embedded in it.
Photo: David Tong, Adopt A Negotiator
The first place fossil goes to India for continuing to be a spoiled sport on equity at the ADP sessions. The previous fossil to India was for their push to get the only mention of equity in the text to be deleted. At yesterday’s late night ADP session, India once again spoke against equity opposing South Africa’s proposal on the Equity Reference Framework and wanting to cancel the workshop on equity at the upcoming ADP session in Bonn. CAN certainly expects more from a party that showed promise of being an equity champion just two years ago in Durban, saying they could not see a future deal without equity embedded in it.
It was an all too familiar feeling when Parties started repeating their well-known positions and citing already agreed decisions here in Warsaw. But ECO does like the recent trend citing one key notion: urgency.
AOSIS has made significant efforts to establish a concrete technical process to accelerate action on renewables and energy efficiency – that’s a direct way to close the ambition gap.
Columbia (AILAC) and The Gambia (LDCs) have been trying to capture the discussion of ‘elements’ in the 2015 agreement in as concrete and formal a manner as possible.
And the LDCs and Trinidad and Tobago have stressed the need for a compliance mechanism item in the list of issues to discuss next year. Those are all elements of action that respond to urgency.
The Like-Minded Developing Countries stressed another very important issue. Finance, technology and capacity-building support are essential for developing countries to implement their NAMAs.
On the other hand, the proposal from various like-minded countries to delete paragraph 9 altogether is a disappointing development.
For a change, we can even commend some developed countries, in addition to Swaziland (African Group) and South Africa, for their efforts to specify the timeline and concrete steps toward Paris. Norway made a good proposal to have mitigation commitments presented within 2014.
And we especially welcome the African Group's comments on the necessity to check the adequacy and equity of commitments, and South Africa's support for an equity reference framework.
Furthermore, today in the High Level Segment presentations, the Chinese minister called for the adoption of a work plan towards agreement on the 2015 deal.
With all these good proposals on the table, ECO has to wonder why Parties still seem to be unable to find common ground to produce a clear work plan with milestones to address both closing the pre-2020 ambition gap and agreeing the 2015 deal.
We are coming to the final hours of this conference. The time for reiteration and recitation has ended. The co-chairs have made it clear: this is decision time. Parties now have to show they have come to Warsaw to make progress, not just to repeatedly repeat what they have already repeated.
At the ADP session last night on the chairs’ (now Parties’) text there was at least one thing in common: nobody likes it very much.
ECO is with you on that, but at least there is a text. That’s an important milestone in a long journey. We’ll heed the Chairs’ advice and not provide per paragraph comments but provide some initial impressions.
On Workstream 2, an ‘action agenda’ is sorely needed, but cannot be in name only. We’ve seen the laundry list of options before, but what is needed in 2014 is tangible action, and that starts with a strong, clear workplan for 2014 with precise deliverables.
And the place to start is that all developed countries must increase their targets by June 2014 at the latest – and signal their intention to do so here in Warsaw, rather than indulge in the usual delays. And we need to see further responses from developing countries, particularly those that have not yet announced pledges.
More specificity is also needed on how the ‘technical development of opportunities’ is going to be organized, with a clear focus on renewable energy, energy efficiency and links to a political process to ensure delivery.
For Workstream 1, a deadline is needed for tabling targets in 2014 with sufficient information for analysis in an equity/adequacy review. We happen to think the Ban Ki-moon summit is an excellent moment for that.
ECO was amazed that with all the discussions here and in Bonn, equity did not yield more than a passing reference in one paragraph. Equity is key to the 2015 agreement and Parties must leave Warsaw with a clear understanding of how the ex ante review will be conducted. This includes the development of a technical paper, in advance of the June ADP session, on the Convention’s core equity principles. This report would identify a small list of core equity indicators (adequacy, historical responsibility, capability, development need, and adaptation need, inter alia) which, taken together in a meaningful way, can operationalize the Convention’s core equity principles.
In parallel, there should be submissions from Parties and Observers on the Convention’s equity principles, and on the quantifiable equity indicators that can most robustly operationalize these principles, helping to build trust and momentum while driving increased ambition on all fronts.
The goal is a list of equity indicators that the Parties can use in both the preparation of their post-2020 offers and in the later review of these offers. Thus there is a need for this work to be completed no later than June in order to respect a 2014 deadline.
It is a tantalizing thought that the indicative elements annex could be the 'first page' of the 2015 agreement. While there are some kinks to work out and omissions to rectify (like a reference to compliance, as LDCs and others pointed out), the most important things is that Parties leave Warsaw with a clear sense of the contours of the 2015 agreement and the process forward next year in order to produce a completed draft in Lima.
Parties have serious work ahead this week to negotiate a meaningful ADP outcome from this meeting. The key to making that happen – could this be any surprise given that we have been saying it since Doha -- is finance, finance, finance! A few sentences in the ADP text is just not enough.
There must be a global finance roadmap with agreed interim milestones for how public finance will be scaled up before 2020, including a complementary agreement to clarify how finance will progress at a national level.
Full operationalization of the GCF is also required, including an explicit confirmation by the COP that a first round of pledges to the GCF is expected no later than the Ban Ki-moon summit.
The Co-Chairs have provided at least a starter course with the initial draft of the ADP. Now we need to progress to the mains and produce a meaningful outcome.
The climate system is a heritage held in trust and passed on from generation to generation. Although the ADP is currently deadlocked, the principle of intergenerational equity (‘Inteq’) could help find common ground. Not only could Inteq bridge generations, it could also heal the divide between developed and developing countries.
Inteq is the principle that the Earth should be handed on to future generations in a state that is no worse than it was received. This means that future generations should have the same access to resources and ecological services that we enjoy today. This has clear implications for the global temperature target and for the assessment of 1.5° and 2° degree pathways. Inteq reminds us of the common goal: our shared future.
Not only does that goal unify, but it is also the first-mentioned principle of the Convention in Article 3. But Parties appear to have some amnesia, as this principle has been missing from their dialogue on equity and targets in the ADP. So how can future generations be considered in 2015, both in words and action?
Parties need to recognize that future generations have the same rights to a healthy and sustainable environment as current ones, and the global temperature limit should reflect this.
Negotiations should concretely embrace Inteq as a guiding principle within the ADP. And the 2015 agreement should explicitly recognize Inteq as a fundamental principle, along with the mechanisms to implement it.
Global food production and food security are threatened by the greater variability of the climate and increasing occurrence of extreme weather events. Yet the agriculture negotiations are not moving with the urgency required to support the world's poor, especially those engaged in agriculture and related activities, in adapting to these adverse impacts. A vast majority of the world’s population is dependent on small-scale food producers -- climate change puts all of this at risk.
While underscoring the importance of mitigation in the agriculture sector, Parties should be working toward safeguards which protect biodiversity, provide equitable access to resources by rural peoples, ensure food security and the right to food, and build on indigenous and local knowledge.
Developed countries must recognise that for agriculture in developing countries, the priorities remain food security, sustainability and climate resilience. Parties must provide financing for promoting biodiversity, ensuring resilient small-scale agriculture based on agro-ecological principles, and support for appropriate technology development and transfer that enhances the sustainability of food production systems.
At the ADP opening yesterday, ECO waited in vain for bold and innovative ideas to ensure each Party proposes its equitable share of the global effort. We are all agreed that equity matters (the WHY) – so let's figure out the HOW.
The COP and ADP opened with clarion calls for ambition – and the key to ambition is equity. Your mission this week, dear Parties, is to move beyond vague statements about fairness and map the all-important Convention principles onto a common list of equity indicators.
We hope you’ve been busy since Bonn doing your homework on this, but just to help out, here is some know-HOW.
ECO believes there are five indicators that really matter: Adequacy, Responsibility, Capacity, Development Need, and Adaptation Need. These are the minimum indicators required to operationalize the core equity principles enshrined in the Convention.
For a fair 2015 outcome, Warsaw must deliver a consensus on the indicators that should guide Parties in formulating their pledges, and against which their pledges will be reviewed and strengthened as necessary. And there is no time to lose!