ECO 11, COP29
| This is not saviour complex charity, it’s about justice The long wait finally ended early yesterday morning. Presidential consultations with parties at long last yielded…well not a draft decision, but a “Streamlined compilation of proposals” that is supposed to transition to draft decision text. After a tedious drumroll that has stretched over the last three years, what we got was a text that was bracketed almost in its entirety. And even then, it continued the suspense on perhaps the biggest question hanging on the finance goal – what’s the number on the table? It is nearly impossible to conceive that after 11 Technical Expert Dialogues, three ad hoc work programme meetings and almost two weeks of volleying here in Baku, we are practically nowhere nearer to deciding a goal than we were at the beginning of this process. ECO knows that Parties are savvy enough to know that without a number, a “quantum” as the suits in these halls like to call it, the words on the 10 pages of text are not even worth the paper on which they are printed. What are we to do with the plethora of fanciful phrasing and options if we don’t even know the number they are supposed to be describing? ECO could not be more clear about this, THERE IS NO GOAL WITHOUT A NUMBER that gives a clear, crystallised signal of what it is exactly that developed countries are going to provide developing countries to implement their climate action. So we are compelled to ask, who is responsible for this dismal state of affairs? A little bit of digging around backed by a modicum of critical thought is enough to zero in on the reason – bad faith tactics from countries of the Global North, countries who are on the hook to pay the gigantic climate debt they have accumulated and owe to the Global South. Instead of constructive engagement on how exactly they intend to address this obligation for their historic responsibility of creating the climate crisis, what we have seen are distractionary tactics, the seeding of rumours that continue the legacy of divide and rule, and efforts to shift the burden of responsibilities. The Global North think that by holding the number close to their chest until the very end, they can force any kind of poison down the throats of the Global South; pushing options so outlandishly ridiculous that they will drag down the baseline of what is fair and equitable. But they are mistaken. These are not colonial times, and we see through their attempts at evading their responsibilities. A process lacking in transparency serves these agendas and helps create a breeding ground for terrible, unjust outcomes. ECO would like to remind all parties that any amount of qualitative garble means nothing without a number. And no number will be enough if it is not backed by quality that is robust and rooted in justice. For Parties of the Global North, we have a simple message – Pay Up! We have an equally simple message for those from the Global South – Stand Up, stand united! For your dignity, for your rights and for your people. |
| BREAKING NEWS — 24 hours to save the Just Transition Work Programme ECO left the venue at 2am in disbelief that one of the most promising pieces to deliver justice in the Paris Agreement might be lost, without even a country to blame. ECO heard Parties’ commitments to land the JTWP in a good place, but with the COP29 Presidency unwilling to open text negotiations, Parties risk ending the year with zero decision on Just Transition, sending all the wrong signals out of this COP and jeopardising the potential to deliver concrete outcomes by COP30. The JTWP does not need a “take it or leave it” approach. Parties must be allowed to reconvene fast, so that workers and communities are not let down. |
| Prescription for developed countries’ nutty adaptation finance pledge allergy We know the NCQG is the rampaging elephant in the rooms at COP29, dominating over all efforts and processes. But we always thought that elephants like peanuts. ECO is surprised to learn that developed countries seem to have developed a serious peanut allergy. How else to explain that while rich countries are wrestling with the heavyweight beast that is the new climate finance goal – which must include a prominent grant-based public provision adaptation sub-goal to address the adaptation finance gap of US$187-359 billion per year (per UNEP) – they cannot even pull out of their pockets the peanuts or small sum needed to secure the work of the Adaptation Fund for another year. ECO hears with dismay and outrage that the efforts of the Adaptation Fund to raise $300 million in Baku (the bare minimum to support urgent adaptation projects) have only garnered around $130 million so far, not even half of the very modest fundraising goal of the Adaptation Fund. This is peanuts! The other two smaller adaptation-focused funds under the Convention and Paris Agreement, the LDCF and the SCCF, didn’t even open the pledge room at COP29. ECO would like to remind the parties that less adaptation will result in more loss and damage. Yet, apparently, rich countries, obviously fearing severe anaphylactic shock to adaptation finance pledging here, had signaled that their own health was more important than the billions of people already suffering severe climate impacts and needing adaptation support, and that they would therefore stay away. ECO knows, allergies are potentially dangerous, but can usually be managed. For the remaining time in Baku, we suggest using a heavy daily dose of decency and the global solidarity serum that we hear works wonders. You can still shell out a large heaping handful of peanuts for the Adaptation Fund, as well as for the SCCF and LDCF. This will not only do good for developed countries’ moral health, but also for feeding the trust needed among parties in wrangling the NCQG elephant into good behavior and performance by the end of this week. |
| The mitigation ambition ghost haunts COP29 The ghost of mitigation ambition haunts this COP, an apparition that flickered briefly during the discussions on the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP). Yet, as the first week closed, several parties sought to banish this apparition, trying to exorcize mitigation ambition from the negotiations entirely. As the second week unfolds, the ghost is spotted again. Glimpses of mitigation ambition have reappeared in the UAE dialogue on implementing the global stocktake. ECO has tried hard to give this ghost clear form and shape: The first dimension of mitigation ambition is a clear reference to implementing the mitigation section of the Global Stocktake, especially the fossil fuel phase out and halting of deforestation. Let us not be haunted by the UAE consensus, lingering like a restless ghost. The mitigation ambition ghost has another dimension. The UAE consensus must be implemented through NDCs. ECO expects NDCs to include clear milestones on implementing the Global Stocktake, especially on how to phase out fossil fuel consumption and production, with rich countries leading. ECO expects that Brazil will be a warm home for the ambition mitigation ghost and provide space for a serious discussion of the NDC synthesis report at COP30, assessing collective NDCs ambition. But the mitigation ambition ghost faces antagonists. Some parties claim that mitigation cannot be achieved without sufficient financial flows. The reverse is true as well. Finance and mitigation are not rivals, they are interdependent forces. Without finance, mitigation measures cannot be implemented. Likewise, without clear and ambitious mitigation targets, finance for mitigation loses its purpose. For ECO it is completely clear: we cannot allow backward steps in mitigating the climate crisis, but must act on all fronts. For example, the Global North must take the lead in ending fossil fuel subsidies in a just manner, redirecting these funds toward public climate finance. Equitably designed taxes on fossil fuel extraction and other high-emitting sectors should become sources of climate finance, enabling a just and equitable transition. The mitigation ambition ghost must no longer wander as a disembodied fantasy. Mitigation ambition must be summoned fully into reality, embodied in the texts, commitments, and actions of this COP29. ECO is convinced that only this way we can hope to secure a future that aligns with the Paris Agreement and climate justice. |
| While Brazil talks energy transition, Petrobras announces mega-investment in O&G In its new strategic plan to be launched today, Brazil’s national oil and gas company, Petrobras, will announce investments of $111 billion dollars over the next five years, primarily focusing on exploration and production activities ($77 billion) and refining, transportation, and petrochemicals ($20 billion). Petrobas expects to increase production to 3.2 million barrels of oil equivalent per day by 2030. The plan calls for a 9% increase in investments over the previous plan, with $4 billion more allocated to oil and gas exploration and production alone. That includes investments in oil exploration near the mouth of the Amazon river, a project that will impact cities along the Amazon region coastline, including Belém, which will host COP30. Investments in renewables have not yet been disclosed but are expected to remain far below those for O&G. In the previous plan, only $5.5 billion was earmarked for low-carbon energy initiatives. With this, Petrobras, reinforces its commitment to the expansion of fossil fuel production, despite Brazil’s robust renewable energy industry, which already contributes 50% of the Brazilian energy supply. While Parties here in Baku are struggling to agree on increased climate finance, Petrobras is going in the opposite direction, investing in pumping more fossil fuels out of the ground and more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. This reveals the hole in the incoming presidency’s newly announced Paris target: despite the scientific consensus that there’s no room for new oil and gas within a 1.5ºC carbon budget, and Brazil’s promise that its NDC would be 1.5ºC-aligned, it has not yet ended new oil and gas expansion. |
| Rich nations and MDBs present an NCQG magic show Step right up to the NCQG magic show: presented by rich countries and MDBs Throughout the NCQG text rich countries, with the aid of their beautiful assistant the multilateral development banks (MDBs), are using smoke and mirrors to create an illusion that funds will flow from north to south. But as the smoke clears, we can see what dirty tricks are up the sleeves of those MDBs. We see a trapdoor of debt that reaches recordbreaking depth as the MDBs channel the majority of finance through crippling loans – last year only 4% of their so-called climate finance were grants. The private sector magic wand creates the fantasy of enhancing finance for climate action. But what will this financing of the private sector be for, other than profits and lining shareholder pockets, while it magics away requirements for a just transition? It is no surprise that the MDBs count airport expansions and other greenhouse gas intensive projects as ‘climate finance.’ And with a sleight of hand they promote false solutions such as carbon markets that let the super rich off the hook for taking real climate action (say it again: ‘carbon markets are not climate finance’). And downright deceptions: that fossil gas is a transition fuel and the fossil fuel industry is part of the solution, when the only way to future-proof infrastructure and be compatible with a 1.5°C pathway is to end all support for fossil fuels. The MDBs are creating a mirage of funding that is taking climate finance further from the climate vulnerable people and ecosystems that need it the most. Now is not the time for conjuring tricks, but to have a clear vision of what is needed. In these last hours of COP29, it is rich countries who must pay up for the NCQG. Take the MDBs out of the picture. Adaptation, loss and damage, and just energy transition need grants and non-debt instruments that the MDBs are not set up to deliver. Instead, make justice and equity the star of the show by putting front and centre the needs of people most at risk from flood, drought and typhoons and those who are choking on the pollution of fossil fuels while living in energy poverty. Developed countries must meet their obligations on fair terms for climate action, and deliver them through democratic and accountable mechanisms that put people and the planet first. |
| Article 6.2’s smoke and mirrors The envisioned secrecy surrounding Article 6.2 could result in the kind of sleight of hand activities in which smoke emitted in one country can be concealed behind an impenetrable mirror in another. ECO’s hopes of addressing this are vanishing into thin air as yesterday morning’s text was even worse than the weak text the day before. Searching for information about 6.2 activities looks like it will be as hard as peering into a conjurer’s hat or an escape artist’s box. ECO had hopes for more transparency and strengthened accountability, which could help prevent these activities amounting to smoke and mirrors – in which emissions appear to be falling on paper while they continue to rise into the skies in the real world. But those hopes have been dashed. Let’s start with the obvious. Internationally Traded Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs) must not be used when they do not do what they claim on the label (i.e. there are significant or persistent inconsistencies including those leading to a net increase in global emissions) or when they hurt people (i.e. when they are related to violations of human rights or the rights of Indigenous Peoples). In such actual or suspected cases the activities need to be immediately halted and the underlying ITMOs put on hold (and if need be, stopped entirely). Surely, we can agree that “climate action” shouldn’t violate people’s rights or harm the planet? But it seems to ECO that some Parties do not agree on this based on the current text. ECO also has to insist on transparency of information. This means requiring, not just considering, if maybe you want to give, additional information in the initial report. Without this information, the Technical Expert Review will be a meaningless check-the-box exercise. Cooperative approaches can’t happen in a black box. What have countries got to hide? If they are engaging in robust climate action, surely, they’d want to sing it from the rooftops, not hide it in the basement. Smokescreens are bad, but one thing ECO would like to see going up in smoke is old ITMOs. Make sure ITMOs sold to companies have an expiry date tied to the NDC period when they occurred, or else mindless zombie credits will wreak havoc on the climate books for years to come. And just as ECO was reading yesterday’s text with dismay, it saw a new report finding a 6.2 project overestimates its planned emissions reductions by 79%. Evidence for widespread overcrediting is mounting, and if Article 6.2 continues down this path towards an accounting trick rather than real reductions, there will be a massive hole in the integrity of the Paris Agreement. If we thought greenwashing corporations were bad, wait until we see “NDC washing” countries. ECO would much rather see upfront information and real consequences for inconsistencies than have to call out afterwards which countries’ cooperative approaches – and the NDCs relying on them – are shams. Beware the Nuclear Stampede Coming for Climate Finance One of the elephants in the room at COP29 is a pledge by a group of nations, led by the USA, to triple nuclear energy worldwide by 2050. This elephant hasn’t exactly been silent, with noisy foot-stomping by the USA, backed strongly by a number of Friday’s other Fossil of the Day winners, and trumpeted heavily at COP29 by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and industry-sponsored front groups like Nuclear for Climate. It hasn’t escaped ECO’s attention that six more nations have signed on to the distracting Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy, launched by the US last year, bringing the total signatories to 31. Global North nations that have pushed back on an ambitious finance outcome at COP29 are at the same time using the Nuclear Expansion Pledge to seemingly hijack climate finance for a corporate scheme. One that would burden Global South nations with unsustainable debt, and unending streams of radioactive waste. Last week, representatives of the World Nuclear Association and the IAEA stated at COP29 that an expansion of 1000 nuclear reactors would cost at least $5 trillion – and that financing would require governments to “de-risk” them. In other words, governments would need to bail out projects that run over budget, further draining climate finance accounts. The other problem is that nuclear power plants cost $10-20 billion in every country where costs are publicly known. If the Global North pushes Global South countries through the expansion scheme, it could steal upwards of $10 trillion of climate finance from serving the needs of climate justice. While it sounds like a big deal, the nuclear expansion pledge is a smokescreen for the hijacking of climate finance to let rich nations hoard the funds they owe the Global South. It would also undermine the landmark GST decision to triple renewables and double annual rate of energy efficiency improvements. Tripling nuclear power by 2050 would result in less electricity than renewable energy already generated just in 2022. The first new nuclear plants that could be built under the expansion pledge would be online in 2035, making no contribution at all to the dramatic emissions reductions needed for 1.5C. It is time to name the Nuclear Expansion Pledge what it is: a dangerous distraction and an ambition-killer. Don’t lock us out of the NCQG It’s the last day of COP29 in Baku, and civil society is still asking the same question: What on earth is going on with the New Collective Quantified Goal? For a process that’s supposed to set the bedrock of climate finance for years to come, it’s surprisingly opaque. Civil society? Not in the room. Three years of negotiations. Countless meetings. And here we are, on the last day of COP29, with no clarity. Let’s get real: the NCQG isn’t just a number — it’s essential for people experiencing the impacts of climate change all around the world. Who better to inform the process than civil society? But instead of being treated as partners, we’ve been sidelined, peering through the metaphorical glass at negotiations that feel more like a secret society meeting than an open, inclusive process. There’s so much we could contribute. Innovative financing ideas? Got them. Insights into what works on the ground? Ready to share. A sense of urgency? Absolutely. But here we are, watching negotiators spin their wheels while the clock ticks down. The world deserves a decision, and it deserves one rooted in justice — not secrecy. Barriers, blockages and brackets – a call for a breakthrough and vigilance! “ECO is happy to share this part of our publication with the informal Disability Caucus to help amplify their voice. This article reflects the views of the informal Disability Caucus.” Disability rights – why is this so contentious? For 1.3 billion people, 1 in 6 globally (yes you read that right), having a disability is a daily experience. 80% – 1 billion – live in low-income countries, some of the most impacted by the climate crisis, 2 to 4 times harder hit (yes you read that right too) in a disaster. You’d have thought their voice and participation would be prioritised at COP? Sadly not. The barriers remain high, with “accessibility” being a tick box exercise. 192 United Nations member states have signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, GUARANTEEING participation rights. But “Disability” remains without Constituency status at the UNFCCC and the voice of a billion is being blocked. With just one reference in the Paris Agreement preamble to lean on, the inclusion in UNFCCC text outcomes to “persons with disabilities” and “disability”, that protects their rights, is left out and forgotten … or at best bracketed, then blocked and used as a human rights bargaining chip. This cannot continue. Our patience is worn thin. We are angry. We need your support. We need a Constituency. Be vigilant. Ask yourself, ask your constituency, ask your negotiators and ask the UNFCCC: “Does this text specifically protect the rights of persons with disabilities?” and “Does this promote a disability inclusive approach?” If neither then the process will have failed. Join our disability movements justice call for a Constituency to ensure “Nothing without us”! in Baku, and civil society is still asking the same question: What on earth is going on with the New Collective Quantified Goal? For a process that’s supposed to set the bedrock of climate finance for years to come, it’s surprisingly opaque. Civil society? Not in the room. |
––
Download file: http://ECO-22-11-2024-.pdf