ECO 5, SB60
| Ambition reality check for the Article 6.2 Titanic ECO couldn’t agree more with one of the Article 6 negotiators: the negotiations on Article 6.2 are like being on the Titanic, moving towards the tip of an iceberg. So, negotiators, let’s zoom out. How did this ship get here? Why are you on this ship in the open ocean? And what was your destination anyway? The Paris Agreement was the initial harbor. You set off from there, on a course for 1.5ºC, and chose Article 6.2 as part of your fleet to reach this goal. But the Article 6.2 Titanic is drifting off; it seems that part of the crew never wanted this ship to be part of the 1.5ºC fleet anyway, and they have thrown out the compass. Now we’re steering between the icebergs of technical intricacies, and those negotiators who still want to reach 1.5ºC are trying desperately to make the best of a bad situation. ECO hates to break the news, but Article 6.2 is adrift: without a major course correction, it will enshrine an offsetting instrument with weak oversight, leading to Spurious Hot-air Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes. Redirecting the Article 6.2 fleet won’t be easy, but luckily ECO brought its sonar to spot the hidden icebergs ahead and get us through safely. Disclosing core information about Parties’ cooperative approaches in a standard authorisation form, which is clearly reviewed before ITMOs are transacted, is a no-brainer for transparency and for a minimum check on quality. The review of cooperative approaches must go beyond a box-ticking exercise, to ensure ITMOs are compliant with environmental integrity and based on sufficient information, not just vague reporting obligations. If issues (‘inconsistencies’) around the quality of ITMOs are detected, then these need to be publicly flagged and addressed with real corrective measures such as halting ITMO actions. Without upfront information being mandatorily disclosed and a real process to identify and resolve inconsistencies, these Spurious Hot-air ITMOs will drag Article 6.2 (and the integrity of the Paris Agreement) to the dark depths where 1.5ºC is no longer in sight. Most of all, without a clear compass that prioritizes climate mitigation, environmental integrity and human rights over offsetting, Article 6.2 is not going to contribute to climate ambition — far from it, it could ram all the other ships in the 1.5ºC fleet. Indeed, we can already see a number of suspected hazardous ITMOs in the appropriately named Article 6.2 “pipeline” and encourage negotiators to take a look. After years of offset discussions that delayed real action, elements under Article 6 that endanger the long term guarantee of overall mitigation of global emissions are simply not acceptable. ECO therefore calls on negotiators with good intentions to bring the ambition compass back into Article 6. All hands on deck! |
| Shipping talks must ensure most vulnerable countries are heard As the mitigation work programme continues to struggle within the UNFCCC, work is progressing on the decarbonization of a significant, but often overlooked, global polluter: international shipping. The International Maritime Organization, the UN’s London-based shipping regulator, adopted a GHG Strategy last year that sets clear reduction targets for 2030, 2040 and 2050, together with a commitment to a “just and equitable transition”. The challenge is now to design the regulations to deliver on these commitments. This weekend, IMO negotiators will convene informally in Bonn at the German Transport Ministry. ECO will be keeping an eye on these discussions, including the extent to which they involve and elevate the voices of those with most at stake in the outcome: SIDS and LDCs, who are both heavily dependent on international shipping and most vulnerable to climate impacts – including from emissions from ships. |
| This is not the $100 billion you’re looking for$100 billion! That’s a number ECO has heard for well over a decade, and again this week. ECO wishes that this was in celebration of reaching a full $100 billion in grants-based public finance, but sadly no. This is not about the amount of climate finance which was promised per year by 2020 – and not delivered. No. It is the volume of oil and gas deals done last year by just one nationally-owned oil company, ADNOC, when the UAE held the COP28 presidency. That’s right, $100 billion! While ECO thought we were in Dubai to increase ambition on fighting the climate crisis – including a full, fast, fair, and funded fossil fuel phase out – it seems that others were there for a different reason: promoting oil and gas. ECO had its suspicions, of course, but a new Global Witness report confirms that when you put the head of an oil and gas company in charge of the climate negotiations, then you end up with more oil and gas commitments. Conflict of Interest, anyone? Among the deals done were ones with other members of the troika – the countries which will host the next two COPs. And it’s not lost on ECO that when we go to this year’s petrostate host country, yet again a former oil and gas executive will be in charge. This new report emphasizes the critical need for a conflict of interest policy at the UNFCCC. Big Polluters are the fox in the hen house. Keeping global heating below 1.5ºC will require phasing out fossil fuels, full stop. So it’s hard to claim that you are committed to transitioning away from fossil fuels while prioritizing deals to sell more. |
| NDCs 3.0 – a Human Rights obligationIt is early June; time for the SBs. While the weather is a bit weird (could it be climate change?), the usual tactics and games unfold: calls for urgency, last-minute agenda fights, reinterpretations of agenda items just agreed a couple of months ago… The clear and unchanging message ECO wants to convey this time is: there is no climate justice (in NDCs) without human rights (in NDCs). ECO made a little detour via Strasbourg on the way to Bonn where the European Court of Human Rights found Switzerland in violation of its human rights obligations for failing to implement sufficient measures to combat climate change. If the floods in Kenya, Brazil and other countries and the heatwave in South and Southeast Asia (just to name a few) weren’t enough to convince Parties that their enhanced NDCs should be in line with the objective to limit warming to 1.5°C, maybe this verdict will help. This powerful judgment should be reflected upon by all Parties – it is the perfect opportunity to step up national climate action. ECO also eagerly awaits a strong advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice that reinforces the understanding that protection against climate change impacts is a human right obligation, and that Parties’ legal obligations related to climate change go well beyond the conference halls of the UNFCCC. As we all know, NDCs are the centerpiece of the ambition cycle and must drive enhanced action and ambition at the national level, firmly grounded on the GST outcomes. They are key instruments to anchor climate action and fulfill climate-related human rights duties. An NDC in line with human rights obligations starts with 1.5°C alignment, which in turn needs a full phase out of all fossil fuels (please, without offsets). It must also address those other massive 2030 gaps – adaptation and finance ambition – and should drive inclusive and rights-based climate action. And we want to highlight the obvious: developed countries must to do more according to their respective responsibilities and capabilities. And finally, a strong NCQG is critical to unlock the full potential of NDCs. And what’s this full potential, you ask? It means ambitious targets underpinned by concrete policies and plans. ECO asks Parties respond to sectoral global goals defined in the GST decision, including by detailing strategies for the phase out of fossil fuels, according to local circumstances. And don’t be mistaken, the deployment of renewables must be carried out under high standards and social-environmental safeguards, and with respect for human rights including Indigenous Peoples’ right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent. Integrating human rights into NDCs is not only a moral and legal imperative but also a crucial step towards achieving sustainable and equitable climate action. ECO looks forward to the next batch of NDCs, informed by the IPCC, the GST and respect for human rights – that’s the way to do a much better job! |
| Will the real gender champions please stand up? Wandering around the negotiation rooms, ECO hears many items under Adaptation. Yet there is deafening silence on gender equality. While the decision text on the GGA in Dubai reflected the need for gender responsiveness in national adaptation plans (NAPs) and “to take gender into account” during their implementation, one cannot simply lean back and consider the job done, not even with this acceptable but ultimately weak language. ECO finds it distressing that among priorities during interventions gender is not making the cut, at least you haven’t forgotten about Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge. Weren’t the rights of Indigenous Peoples and gender once besties and mentioned in tandem? Has it somehow slipped from negotiators’ minds? Or is this silence sending a message about gender equality not being important for climate justice? So here’s a friendly reminder to all of you who can speak in the Adaptation negotiations: gender equality is in fact one of the most cross-cutting and important social bases for climate justice, and we still have a long way to go. Adaptation measures have no purpose if they are not informed, designed and implemented in a gender-responsive manner. And if you’re casting about for ideas on how to do it, consider the good example of your Mexican colleagues from the EIG group. |
| Daily inspiration |
––
Download file: http://ECO-06.07.2024.pdf