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 Digital Blog
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. So let us try present- ing it in a different medium…namely, in a song! We sincerely hope you get this song stuck in your head.
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). Two of these priorities stick out for ECO: the need to avoid double counting through corresponding adjustments for all international transfers, and the transition away from Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms to Article 6.
It’s all well-known – the UNFCCC negotiations are progressing at a slow pace, the workload and delivery is lagging behind schedule, and the parties’ enthusiasm on rapid and early enhancing of ambition to meet the Paris objectives is hardly visible, particularly with the looming COP in Poland. But here comes the IPCC to the rescue – hopefully.
The beauty of the Technology Mechanism (TM) is that it has dozens of “TEC Briefs” on a large number of topics that can help countries understand which adaptation and mitigation technologies might be best for deployment in their own countries.
Four months have already passed since our last meeting, and ECO is glad to see you back in Bangkok. Something we did not hear in the Opening, which is a crucial point, there’s only three months until COP24. That is where the Talanoa Dialogue must end with a strong outcome calling on countries to step-up ambition of NDCs and support by 2020.
Remember this table, Parties? It has changed slightly, but not nearly enough since Bonn. It is now too late for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (KP2) to enter into force by COP24 and the stocktake on pre-2020 implementation and ambition. Slow and steady just won’t do when we’re trying to honor and implement treaties to fight global disasters.
Since Bonn SB48, we have not stopped asking ourselves how to go through all the confusion of co-facilitator notes, intertwined and interlinked between politics and technicalities. Admittedly, to escape negotiation purgatory as soon as possible, we were hoping to see a clean text with clear options, as a result of the Co-Chairs’ work feeding into Bangkok. This hope was not fulfilled by the Co-Chairs, and a lot of the heavy lifting still lies ahead of you, Parties. But you know what they say: no pain no gain.